State ex rel. Hayes v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.
It is well settled that the determination of disputed factual situations, including that of PTD and whether the claimant could return to any other employment, is totally within the province and final jurisdiction of the commission, subject to correction by action in mandamus only upon a showing of abuse of discretion. See State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. Comm. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 167, 172-173, 31 OBR 369, 374, 509 N.E.2d 946, 951; State ex rel. Kokocinski v. Indus. Comm. (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 186, 188, 11 OBR 499, 500, 464 N.E.2d 564, 566.
However, in determining PTD, the commission is…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State ex rel. Gay v. MihmOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Stephenson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- State ex rel. Waddle v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- State ex rel. Lopez v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Ellis v. McGraw Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Supreme Bumpers, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- Poneris v. M J Painting Co., Unpublished Decision (5-1-2003)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2003
- State Ex Rel. Supreme Bumpers, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State ex rel. Hayes v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
- State ex rel. Humphrey v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.