This case highlights the importance of making a strong case before the Industrial Commission of Ohio (“ICO”), especially in “extent of disability” cases such as PTD compensation, where appeals are based exclusively on the ICO record. The ICO’s judgment on issues such as credibility and factual evidence are given great deference by the courts, and should not be overturned absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. In this case, the ICO had determined that the employee, Black, was ineligible for PTD because he failed to present evidence that at or around the time of his planned retirement, either a physician advised him to retire or that his then-allowed claim conditions induced his retirement. Moreover, after his retirement date, Black neither worked nor looked for work.
The Tenth District Court of Appeals, in Columbus, issued a writ of mandamus ordering the ICO to reevaluate its decision. The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed, holding that the court of appeals improperly substituted its own evaluation of the evidence for that of the ICO’s. First, Black was able to return to work in a light duty capacity only two days after he had decided to retire. Moreover, in an office visit just before his retirement, Black’s doctor found an increase in restrictions, but they were due to pain symptoms unrelated to the claim. Finally, the fact that he did not look for other work after his retirement supported the conclusion his retirement was not only voluntary but also was an abandonment of the entire workforce. Thus, the ICO’s decision denying PTD compensation, was affirmed.