Summary
George Smith sought a writ of mandamus directing the Ohio Industrial Commission to award scheduled-loss benefits for the alleged total loss of his vision and hearing following an anoxic brain injury. The Tenth District Court of Appeals held that medical evidence may establish a total loss of vision or hearing under Ohio Revised Code section 4123.57(B) based on practical functional considerations, rather than solely on clinical testing. The court granted a writ requiring the commission to conduct a new adjudication and to reconsider the medical evidence under the appropriate standard.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- What standard governs scheduled loss awards for vision and hearing under R.C. 4123.57(B), and does the loss-of-use standard applicable to appendages also apply?
- Whether the medical evidence, particularly Dr. Hess's report, constituted some evidence of a total loss of vision and hearing.
- Whether the Industrial Commission abused its discretion by relying on Dr. Ortega's reports and by treating them as inconsistent with Dr. Hess's report.
- Whether the commission's denial should be vacated and the applications remanded for a new adjudication.
Holdings
- Under R.C. 4123.57(B), a total loss of vision or hearing is not limited to a clinical finding of a 100 percent loss based solely on audiological or visual testing. The commission may consider the practical application of clinical or other medical data, but vision loss must be total or a partial loss exceeding the statutory threshold and identified by a specific percentage, while hearing loss must be permanent and total.
- Dr. Hess's report constituted some evidence of a total loss of vision and hearing because it explained that Smith could not process visual or auditory signals in a meaningful way despite intact optic nerves and auditory structures.
- A new adjudication was required because the commission rejected evidence that constituted some evidence of total loss and may have evaluated Dr. Ortega's reports under an incorrect requirement of a specific, objectively testable percentage of loss.
- Dr. Ortega's reports were not internally inconsistent or equivocal. They consistently attributed Smith's loss of meaningful visual and auditory function to his anoxic brain damage, although the addendum used an improper framework concerning definite, objectively testable loss.
Key quotations
“This precedent leads us to conclude that this court and the Supreme Court have interpreted “total loss” of vision or hearing under R.C. 4123.57(B) to mean something other than a clinical finding of a 100 percent loss based solely on audiological findings.” (197 Ohio App. 3d at 297)
“Instead, while not relying expressly on the for-all-practical-purposes standard articulated in loss-of-appendage cases like Alcoa, this court and the Supreme Court of Ohio have held that the commission does not abuse its discretion by awarding scheduled loss benefits for a total loss of vision or hearing where the medical evidence considers the practical application of clinical or other data showing a loss of 100 percent or less.” (197 Ohio App. 3d at 297-298)
Factual background
George Smith sustained a work-related injury in 1995 and developed an anoxic brain injury and seizure disorder following surgery. He remained in a persistent vegetative state and had previously received scheduled loss-of-use awards for his arms and legs. In 2009, physicians reported that his optic nerves appeared intact but that he did not respond to visual or auditory testing because his anoxic brain damage prevented meaningful processing of signals. The Industrial Commission denied scheduled loss awards for total loss of vision and hearing, relying on the absence of objective testing and on Dr. Ortega's addendum.
Procedural history
Smith suffered a work-related injury and later obtained scheduled loss-of-use awards for his arms and legs. The Industrial Commission denied his subsequent application for scheduled loss awards for vision and hearing, relying principally on Dr. Ortega's reports. A magistrate recommended denial of the mandamus writ, but the Court of Appeals sustained objections in part, rejected the commission's application of the governing standard, and ordered a new adjudication.
Remand instructions
The Industrial Commission must conduct a new adjudication of Smith's applications for scheduled loss awards for total loss of vision and hearing under R.C. 4123.57(B). The commission may give further consideration to or seek clarification of Dr. Ortega's report and addendum under the proper standard.