State ex rel. Byrd v. American Standard, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Compliance with Noll is once again the central question at bar. The parties do not seriously dispute the sufficiency of the commission’s medical analysis, presumably because there is nothing to attack. The reports of Drs. Holbrook and Dillahunt are some evidence supporting the claimant’s ability to do sedentary work. Resolution thus turns on the adequacy of the commission’s analysis of nonmedical factors. Upon review, we find that the order does not satisfy Noll and accordingly reverse the court of appeals.
Claimant’s nonallowed conditions undoubtedly prevent claimant from ever returning to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State ex rel. Gay v. MihmOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Waddle v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- State ex rel. Hanna v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
3Cited by2 opinions
- Baker v. Indus. Comm. of Ohio, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2003)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2003
- State ex rel. Byrd v. Am. Std., Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997