Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Jennings v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 1982No. 81-1822PublishedCited by 52 opinions

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

  1. State ex rel. General Motors Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. State ex rel. Hutton v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  3. State ex rel. Kramer v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1979

3Cited by52 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Paragon v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. State ex rel. Brown v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  5. State ex rel. LTV Steel Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1992

47 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