 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Chelsea v. Industrial Commission of Ohio6/25/2002
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
ON OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION IN MANDAMUS
. Relator, Victor Chelsea, filed this original action in mandamus requesting this court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission"), to vacate its order denying relator's application for permanent total disability and to issue an order granting said compensation or, in the alternative, to issue an order that complies with State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, and State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. Comm. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 167.
. This court referred the matter to a magistrate pursuant to Civ.R. 53(C), and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, who issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law. (See Appendix A.) The magistrate concluded that relator failed to meet his burden in mandamus and that this court should deny the requested writ.
. Relator filed an objection to the decision of the magistrate. Essentially, relator argues that the magistrate should not have denied the writ because there was insufficient evidence to support the commission's denial of his application for permanent total disability compensation. Relator asserts that the evidence establishes that he lacks the intellectual capacity to learn the additional skills he would need to obtain the type of work he is capable of performing. The commission filed a memorandum in opposition to relator's objection, arguing that there was sufficient evidence presented to support the commission's decision.
. The magistrate notes that the commission identified reports from Drs. Yarab and Van Auken, which indicate that relator is physically and psychologically capable of sustained remunerative employment consistent with a number of job titles. The commission also identified the report of vocational expert Larry Kontosh, as well as a number of other factors which demonstrate that relator is capable of acquiring new job skills. Because the commission cited "some evidence" to support its decision and provided an explanation of its reasoning, the magistrate concluded that the court should deny the requested writ.
. The magistrate's decision identifies the correct standard of review. The issue before the court is whether the commission cited "some evidence" to support its decision and provided a brief explanation of its reasoning. Although there is conflicting evidence relating to relator's capacity to learn, the commission clearly cited "some evidence" to support its decision and provided an explanation of its reasoning.
. Following an independent review, pursuant to Civ.R. 53, we find that the magistrate has properly determined the pertinent facts and applied the salient law. Accordingly, relator's objection to the magistrate's decision is overruled and we adopt the decision of the magistrate as our own. Therefore, the requested writ of mandamus is denied. Objection overruled; Writ of mandamus denied.
BOWMAN and BROWN, JJ., concur.
APPENDIX
MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
Rendered on March 28, 2002
IN MANDAMUS
Relator, Victor Chelsea, filed this original action asking the court to compel respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its order denying compensation for permanent total disability ("PTD") and to issue an order that grants compensation, or, in the alternative, an order that complies with State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, and State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. Comm. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 167.
Findings of Fact:
1. I
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|