 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel First Energy Corp. v. Stover6/11/2002
gh its own order, the commission explained the rationale for its finding that claimant's level of achievement was above her actual day-to-day abilities to perform. Further, through the report of Gearhart and Kahler, and in its own order, the commission explained, that, given her difficulties in reading, writing and performing math, claimant was not a good candidate for retraining. Where a vocational report extensively discusses and analyzes the relevant non-medical factors, the commission does not to repeat the analysis in its order. State ex rel. Hunt v. Indus. Comm. (Sept. 28, 1995), Franklin App. No. 94APD11-1659, unreported (Memorandum Decision), and State ex rel. Freeman v. Indus. Comm. (Mar. 17, 1998), Franklin App. No. 97APD02-251, unreported (Memorandum Decision).
Relator specifically contends that the commission failed to discuss relator's age in conjunction with the amount of time she had to rehabilitate or retrain. Relator contends that State ex rel. Bowling v. Natl. Can Corp. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 148, requires this court to order the commission to hold relator accountable for her failure to retrain. This magistrate disagrees.
Considering this case on its facts, the commission found claimant's education and work history to be negatable factors. The commission also found that claimant is not a good candidate for job retraining. Relator's age was not a dispositive factor as the commission concluded she was not amenable to rehabilitation and her other vocational factors were negative.
As stated previously, the commission accepted and adopted the vocational report prepared by Gearhart and Kahler. Within the body of that report, Gearhart and Kahler explained their findings with regard to claimant's performance on testing, her inability to read, write and perform basic math, her lack of transferable skills, and her likelihood for not satisfactorily being able to be retrained or otherwise rehabilitated. Based upon the commission's reliance on this report and the commission's own explanation, this magistrate finds that the commission did adequately address the non-medical vocational factors, and relator has not demonstrated that the commission abused its discretion in this regard.
Based on the foregoing, it is this magistrate's decision that relator has not demonstrated that the commission abused its discretion in granting claimant's application for PTD compensation, and relator's request for a writ of mandamus should be denied.
STEPHANIE BISCA BROOKS MAGISTRATE
|