 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Chesbrough v. Industrial Commission of Ohio6/11/2002
ourt found that, in its order originally denying relator's request for TTD compensation from October 3, 1995 and dated March 30, 1998, the commission had not sufficiently explained why it found that Dr. Gray's office notes were not persuasive in support of relator's request for TTD compensation beginning October 3, 1995. However, in its decision dated July 27, 2001, the commission did finally explain why those office notes were not found to be persuasive. The following reasons were given: the notes are very difficult to read and nearly illegible; following a page-by-page review of those notes, the commission concluded that Dr. Gray merely discussed relator's condition in ongoing treatment; the notes do not offer any opinion or insight into relator's disability; the notes are purely medical in content and do not reveal whether relator is improving or deriving any benefit from treatment; and the treatments are of such regularity that its leads to the conclusion that relator's condition is not temporary and ultimately lends support to Dr. Gray's January 23, 1996 report indicating that relator had reached MMI. Upon indepen-dent review of those office notes, the commission's explanation is valid. The only question which arises is whether, in all other respects, the commission's July 27, 2001 order meets the requirements of law. This magistrate finds that it does.
Relator contends that the commission cannot apply the standard of MMI with regard to both the 1993 and 1994 claims. Relator asserts that Dr. Gray's January 23, 1996 letter regarding the 1993 claim and stating that relator had reached MMI for the conditions allowed in the 1993 claim cannot apply to the conditions in the 1994 claim. However, upon review of the record and the commission's order, the commission did not do what relator contends.
In its order, the commission stated that all the evidence in the record indicated that relator's conditions being treated by Dr. Gray have not changed since 1996. There is no evidence in the record to support relator's contention that any of his allowed conditions render him temporarily and totally disabled. Instead, as the commission stated, all the evidence indicates that relator's allowed conditions in both claims have been at a state of MMI, or permanency, for an extended period of time and that the evidence submitted by relator was not sufficient to sustain relator's burden of proving that he was entitled to TTD compensation for the time period from October 3, 1995 on.
Relator contends that there is no conflicting medical evidence in the record and that all the evidence is supplied by his doctor. Although that statement is true, relator was required to submit competent, credible medical evidence to support his motion requesting TTD compensation and the commission concluded that relator failed to do so. Upon review of that evidence, this magistrate finds that there is some evidence in the record to support the commission's finding that relator simply has not met his burden of proving entitlement to TTD compensation. The commission based its finding on the entire record and not just on the 1996 letter from Dr. Gray.
Relator has failed to show that the commission abused its discretion in its July 27, 2001 order denying his request for TTD compensation from October 3, 1995 on.
Turning to relator's challenge to the commission's February 15, 2000 order, this magistrate likewise finds that relator has not demonstrated the commission abused its discretion. The commission denied relator's November 19, 1999 request for TTD compensation beginning December 31, 1997, for the following reasons: based upon relator's own persuasive testimony concerning his treatment and a page-
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|