Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
State ex rel. Smith v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided August 20, 1986No. 85-1631Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCelebrezze, C.J.
I applaud the plurality’s decision to discount Dr. Reynolds’ unsigned report as evidence in support of the Industrial Commission’s order. The plurality properly recognizes that an unsigned medical report simply is not reliable evidence upon which the commission can base its determination as to extent of disability. See State, ex rel. Brown, v. Indus. Comm. (1983), 13 Ohio App. 3d 178, 179.
The commission based its order in the instant case “particularly on the medical report of Dr. Reynolds.” Because this report cannot constitute evidence to support the commission’s findings, the requested…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
- Bowen v. American Hospital Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
- State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1933
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.