Legal Opinion

State ex rel. MTD Products, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 2, 1996No. 94-1909PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCook, J.

In this appeal we must determine whether there is “some evidence” supporting the date of the DHO hearing, March 13, 1992, as the effective date of termination for Sarac’s TTD benefits or whether the only evidence before the Industrial Commission mandated that TTD benefits be terminated as of January 22, 1991, the date that Sarac’s attending physician first produced a letter suggesting that Sarac had reached MMI. Because we find that there was “some evidence” before the commission supporting its conclusion, we affirm.

In AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 55, 623…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Jeep Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. State ex rel. McGinnis v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  3. AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Russell v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. Russell v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. State ex rel. Dillon v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022
  4. State ex rel. MTD Products, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. State ex rel. Huntington Natl. Bank v. VogtOhio Court of Appeals · 2017

3 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