Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State Ex Rel. Lockheed Martin v. Industrial Commission of Ohio and

September 30, 2011

STATE EX REL. LOCKHEED MARTIN ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC., RELATOR,
v.
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO AND
WILLIAM J. BRYANT, RESPONDENTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Klatt, J.

Cite as State ex rel. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.,

(REGULAR CALENDAR)

DECISION

IN MANDAMUS

ON OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

{¶1} Relator, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., commenced this original action in mandamus seeking an order compelling respondent, Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission"), to vacate its order awarding permanent total disability ("PTD") compensation to respondent, William J. Bryant ("claimant"), and to enter an order denying said compensation.

{¶2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, we referred this matter to a magistrate who issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is appended hereto. The magistrate found that the commission did not abuse its discretion when it granted the claimant PTD compensation because Dr. North's report constituted some evidence upon which the commission could rely to support the PTD award. Therefore, the magistrate has recommended that we deny relator's request for a writ of mandamus.

{¶3} Relator has filed objections to the magistrate's decision. Relator argues that Dr. North's report cannot constitute some evidence supporting the commission's decision because Dr. North considered nonallowed conditions in rendering his opinion. We disagree.

{¶4} Although Dr. North does make a reference to the claimant's right knee injury in his report, he does so only to point out that this nonallowed condition limited his ability to conduct the examination. Dr. North correctly identifies the allowed conditions in the claim and, after conducting a physical examination (limited to areas of the body associated with the allowed claims), concludes that the claimant is permanently and totally disabled. We agree with the magistrate that the commission did not abuse its discretion when it relied on Dr. North's report.

{¶5} As noted by the magistrate, the mere presence of debilitating nonallowed conditions does not preclude PTD compensation so long as the allowed conditions independently prevent sustained remunerative employment. State ex rel. Waddle v. Indus. Comm. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 452. Here, we agree with the magistrate that Dr. North's report was evidence upon which the commission could rely in the exercise of its discretion. Therefore, we overrule relator's objections.

{¶6} Following an independent review of this matter, we find that the magistrate has properly determined the facts and applied the appropriate law. Therefore, we adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. In accordance with the magistrate's decision, we deny relator's request for a writ of mandamus.

Objections overruled; writ of mandamus denied.

FRENCH and CONNOR, JJ., concur.

APPENDIX

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State ex rel. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Relator, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio and William J. Bryant, Respondents.

No. 10AP-823

(REGULAR CALENDAR)

MAGISTRATE ' S DECISION Rendered on May 5, 2011

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP, and Robert E. Tait, for relator. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Joseph C. Mastrangelo, for respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio. Livorno & Arnett Co. LPA, and John F. Livorno, for respondent William J. Bryant.

IN MANDAMUS

{¶7} In this original action, relator, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., requests a writ of mandamus ordering respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission") to vacate its order awarding permanent total disability ("PTD") compensation to respondent William J. Bryant ("claimant") and to enter an order denying the compensation.

Findings of Fact:

{ΒΆ8} 1. Claimant has two industrial claims arising from his employment as an instrument ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.