State ex rel. Bonnlander v. Hamon

2015-Ohio-4038 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) · Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District · September 30, 2015 · No. No. 14AP-855

Summary

The Tenth District Court of Appeals of Ohio denied Timothy Bonnlander's request for a writ of mandamus directing the Industrial Commission to award permanent total disability compensation. The court held that the reports of psychologist Debjani Sinha constituted some evidence supporting the Commission's determination that Bonnlander was capable of sustained remunerative employment and were not internally inconsistent. The court overruled Bonnlander's objections to the magistrate's decision, with one judge dissenting.

Holdings

  1. The Industrial Commission could rely on Dr. Sinha's reports as some evidence that Bonnlander retained the capacity for sustained remunerative employment, and the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying permanent total disability compensation.
  2. Dr. Sinha's report was not internally inconsistent or equivocal because the statement concerning variable alertness informed her ultimate conclusions about Bonnlander's work restrictions and work capacity.
  3. The magistrate did not impermissibly supplement the commission's order with a conflicting factual finding.
  4. Bonnlander was not entitled to a writ of mandamus ordering the commission to vacate its denial of permanent total disability compensation and award benefits.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Dr. Sinha's psychological reports constituted some evidence supporting the Industrial Commission's finding that Bonnlander could perform sustained remunerative employment.
  2. Whether the commission improperly failed to incorporate or explain the effect of Dr. Sinha's restrictions requiring generous or multiple breaks.
  3. Whether Dr. Sinha's report was internally inconsistent or equivocal because it both limited Bonnlander's ability to perform sustained competitive work and stated that he could work part-time for up to four hours per day.
  4. Whether the magistrate improperly supplemented the commission's order by finding that Bonnlander could work more than four hours per day.

Disposition

writ_denied

Cases Cited (16)

  • State ex rel. Sheller-Chiles v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. No. 13AP-245, 2014-Ohio-313(followed)
  • State ex rel. Schottenstein Stores Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. No. 07AP-1066, 2009-Ohio-2142, ¶ 4(followed)
  • State ex rel. Smith v. Thomas/Sysco Food Serv., 10th Dist. No. 13AP-37, 2014-Ohio-1641, ¶ 10(followed)
  • State ex rel. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-379, 2010-Ohio-2728, ¶ 62(followed)
  • State ex rel. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. No. 06AP-387, 2007-Ohio-1498, ¶ 38(followed)
  • State ex rel. Moyer v. Sharonville Fire Dept., 10th Dist. No. 04AP-92, 2005-Ohio-587, ¶ 12(followed)
  • State ex rel. Clevite Elastomers v. Torok, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-116, 2002-Ohio-4770, ¶ 19(followed)
  • State ex rel. DeSalvo v. May Co., 10th Dist. No. 98AP-986 (June 29, 1999)(followed)
  • State ex rel. DeSalvo v. May Co., 88 Ohio St.3d 231 (2000)(followed)
  • State ex rel. Cale v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. No. 01AP-1143, 2002-Ohio-2924(followed)

Showing top 10 of 16.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Court Of Appeals Of Ohio Tenth Appellate District