Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1998No. 95-2081PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

Kroger challenges the commission’s award of PTD compensation as unsupported by “some evidence,” and as deficient under State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245. We disagree.

Contrary to Kroger’s proposition, there is “some evidence” that the allowed conditions on which the commission relied in assessing PTD are indeed permanent. Dr. Weaver characterized claimant’s psychological conditions as permanent in 1988. Kroger responds that his report should be removed from consideration because he refers to claimant’s adjustment disorder as one that developed as a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
  4. State ex rel. Stephenson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Tyson v. TysonWashington Supreme Court · 1986

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Sunoco v. Robey Indus. Comm., 06ap-361 (9-20-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. State ex rel. Kroger Co. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API