State ex rel. Domjancic v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Three questions are presented: (1) Did the commission abuse its discretion by relying on Dr. Gonzalez’s report? (2) Did the commission abuse its discretion in not considering Ruth’s vocational evaluation? and (3) Does the order satisfy Noll? For the reasons to follow, we answer “no” to each question.
Claimant advances four challenges to Dr. Gonzalez’s report, none of which has merit. Claimant initially claims that the order violates Evid.R. 703. R.C. 4123.10, however, specifically exempts the commission from formal rules of evidence. See, also, State ex rel. Roberts v. Indus. Comm. (1984), 10…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- State ex rel. Gay v. MihmOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Zamora v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- State ex rel. Roberts v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- State ex rel. Cordray v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State ex rel. Cupp v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by88 opinions
- State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v. ForemanOhio Supreme Court · 1997
- State Ex Rel. George v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2011
- State ex rel. Domjancic v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Ranomer v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v. ForemanOhio Supreme Court · 1997
83 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.