Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Zollner v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 19, 1993No. 92-1753PublishedCited by 81 opinions

1Per curiam

Claimant alleges that the commission did not consider either the allowed psychiatric condition or Dr. Durgin’s report. Both claims fail.

Claimant’s first assertion is grounded in the omission of “dysthymic disorder” from the enumerated conditions in the permanent total disability order. Relying on State ex rel. Johnson v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 339, 533 N.E.2d 720, claimant contends that the omission constitutes an abuse of discretion. Johnson, however, is distinguishable. There, as here, the commission’s order did not list an allowed psychiatric condition among the allowed…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. B.O.C. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State ex rel. Gibson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State ex rel. Johnson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988

3Cited by81 opinions

  1. Fletcher v. University HospitalsOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Niskanen v. Giant Eagle, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2009
  3. State ex rel. Jackson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. West v. Bode (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  5. State ex rel. Zollner v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993

76 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