Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Roy v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 23, 1998No. 95-1934PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

There are two general components to a review of a PTD denial: (1) “some evidence” of a medical capacity for some sustained remunerative employment and (2) an adequate analysis of claimant’s nonmedical factors. See State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245. Because the present order satisfies both requirements, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Dr. Hanington’s report, on which the commission relied, is “some evidence” of a medical ability to work, assessing a low fifteen percent impairment.

Assessing the second element, we find the commission’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State ex rel. Hall v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Hartness v. Kroger Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Schottenstein Stores Corporation v. Indus. Commiss., 07ap-1066 (5-7-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. State ex rel. Roy v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API