Commission Lacks Jurisdiction to Reconsider PT Grant

State, ex rel. Nicholls v. Indus. Comm. (4/22/98), 81 Ohio St.3d 454:

SITUATION: Nicholls, in 1958, suffered a non-industrial amputation of his right arm below the elbow. He was fitted with a prosthesis. Shortly thereafter he was employed at American Can where he worked for the next thirty-five years.

In 1989, a severe industrial injury occurred to his left shoulder. Surgery revealed a rotator cuff tear too massive to repair. Nicholls filed for PT.

IC Specialist S reported that Nicholls could not return to his previous work, but could do sedentary work. A vocational report submitted on behalf of Nicholls indicated he was unemployable.

On May 3, 1994 Staff Hearing Officers awarded PT. The employer moved for Reconsideration and accompanied its motion with a vocational report from Parman & Associates (which the Ohio Supreme court says: "is disjointed and difficult to follow with conclusions difficult to pin down.")

The Commission granted Reconsideration "based on the possibility of error in the previous decision." It then denied PT (2 to 1) relying on Parman's vocational report.

A mandamus suit was filed in the Ohio Supreme Court.

STATUS: Ohio Supreme Court vacates the Commission denial of PT and reinstates the Order granting PT (7-0).

Court rules the IC had no jurisdiction based on Commission Resolution R94-1-8. The Resolution permits IC Reconsideration in three instances:

1. unusual legal, medical or factual questions of interest to the IC;
   
   
2. new, previously undiscoverable evidence, or
   
   
3. fraud.

None of these conditions exists. Fraud has never been claimed. There is no legal question on the non-allowed right arm amputation. Non-allowed conditions can't be considered. The Order granting reconsideration does not suggest that the non-allowed conditions were even considered.

The Parman report may have been new, but it was not "undiscoverable." The employer could have "discovered" it months earlier. Therefore, the IC violated its Resolution in exercising Reconsideration jurisdiction.

The Court also rejects the Commission's claim that reconsideration was proper because reconsideration was "in its [the Commission's] opinion justified" because "continuing jurisdiction is not unlimited." The Court indicates that there are limits on when the Commission can exercise continuing jurisdiction and indicates that continuing jurisdiction is only proper where there are

(1) new and changed circumstances, (2) fraud, (3) clear mistake of fact, (4) clear mistake of law, or (5) error by inferior tribunal.

Because none of those situations existed in the present case, the exercise of reconsideration by the Commission was improper.

Editor's Comment: As a result of this decision, the Commission has adopted a new resolution, 98-1-03, which revised the Commission's guidelines for granting reconsideration of the case. That resolution will apply to all final orders published on or after June 1, 1998. If you want to read about the resolution, click here.

To read Resolution R98-1-03 on the Commission's web site, click here.

Click on the case name to view the  decision on the Supreme Court's web site.