State ex rel. Jennings v. Industrial Commission
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
“Where there is no evidence upon which the commission could have based its factual conclusion an abuse of discretion is present and mandamus becomes appropriate. State, ex rel. Hutton, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 9 [58 O.O.2d 66].” State, ex rel. Kramer, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 59 Ohio St. 2d 39, 42 [13 O.O.3d 30, 31].
Relator argues that upon deposition, Dr. McCloud repudiated the conclusion in his report and thus the report cannot constitute evidence to support the order of the commission. We agree.
The purpose of permanent total disability benefits is to compensate a claimant for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State ex rel. General Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- State ex rel. Hutton v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
- State ex rel. Kramer v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979
3Cited by52 opinions
- State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Paragon v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- State ex rel. Brown v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.