Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Soto v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1994No. 93-956PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

The commission concedes that its order does not adequately explain its reasoning, contrary to Noll, supra. We must decide whether to: (1) return the cause for further Noll proceedings or (2) issue a writ compelling a permanent total disability compensation award pursuant to State ex rel. Gay v. Mihm (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 315, 626 N.E.2d 666. Upon review, we elect the latter option.

Gay dispenses with commission “remand” in those situations where the commission’s result simply cannot be justified by any evidence of record. In this case, claimant, at best, is limited to work that does not entail…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. State ex rel. Gay v. MihmOhio Supreme Court · 1994

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Bell v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State ex rel. Singleton v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Bell v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State ex rel. Miller v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014
  5. State ex rel. Allen v. Cleveland Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1997

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API