State ex rel. Questor Corp. v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellant contends that Dr. Erwin’s opinion was based upon a consideration of conditions not allowed in the claim, and thus, cannot constitute evidence to support the order of the commission. This contention is not supported by Dr. Erwin’s report. While the report indicates that Dr. Erwin recognized the existence of unrelated disabilities, it also contains a finding that those disabilities were unrelated to the industrial injury. Dr. Erwin concluded that the claimant had a permanent partial disability of 14 percent “for the allowed injuries in this claim.”
It is well-established that “ * * the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State ex rel. Teece v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- State ex rel. Haines v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- State ex rel. G F Business Equipment, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- State ex rel. Peeples v. Farley Paving Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981
3Cited by12 opinions
- State v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- State ex rel. Morris v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- State Ex Rel. Johnson v. Industrial CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
- State ex rel. Morrissey v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- State ex rel. Posey v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1984
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.