Legal Opinion · Dissent

State ex rel. AutoZone, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 21, 2008No. 2006-1421Published

1DissentO’Donnell, J.

{¶ 27} We are asked here to determine whether the commission’s award for total loss of sight of an eye is supported by “some evidence.” Because the commission’s decision here is not supported by any evidence establishing a 100 percent loss of vision in the claimant’s left eye, it should be reversed. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion to the contrary.

{¶ 28} In State ex rel. ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 96 Ohio St.3d 80, 2002-Ohio-3612, 771 N.E.2d 850, the claimant suffered a thumb injury requiring surgical arthrodesis. The commission granted a total-loss…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Columbus-Suburban Coach Lines, Inc. v. Public Utilities CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  2. State ex rel. Moorehead v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  3. State Ex Rel. Parsec, Inc. v. AginOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
  4. State ex rel. Spangler Candy Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. State ex rel. ABF Freight Sys., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API