State ex rel. Honda of Am., Mfg., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.

Summary

The Tenth District Court of Appeals granted a limited writ of mandamus in a dispute over an Industrial Commission award of permanent total disability compensation. The court held that the medical report relied upon by the commission was internally inconsistent and therefore did not constitute some evidence supporting the award. The matter was remanded to the commission for a new hearing and adjudication of the claimant's application.

Holdings

1. A medical report that is irreconcilably inconsistent with another document prepared by the same physician from the same examination does not constitute some evidence on which the Industrial Commission may rely. Dr. Renneker's report therefore could not support the Commission's finding that Ball was unable to perform sustained remunerative employment.
2. A work capacity of four or more hours per day constitutes sustained remunerative employment for purposes of permanent-total-disability compensation.
3. Honda established entitlement to a limited writ because the Commission's permanent-total-disability award was not supported by some evidence and was therefore contrary to law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Dr. Renneker's medical report, consisting of an allegedly contradictory narrative report and physical-capacity evaluation, constituted some evidence supporting the Industrial Commission's permanent-total-disability award.
2. Whether Honda was entitled to a limited writ of mandamus requiring the Commission to vacate its reconsideration decision and conduct a new hearing and adjudication of Ball's permanent-total-disability application.

Disposition

writ_granted