explaining that Wallace, as interpreted in Teece, “also extends to medical opinions in combined effect claims, where the examining physician only examines for one allowed condition”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that Wallace, as interpreted in Teece, “also extends to medical opinions in combined effect claims, where the examining physician only examines for one allowed condition”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Clifford F. Brown, J.,
concurring. I concur in the analysis and judgment in this case, but I disapprove utilization of the meaningless “some evidence” jargon and citations related thereto, for reasons oft-stated. State, ex rel. Kilburn, v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 1 Ohio St. 3d 103, 106 (dissenting opinion); State, ex rel. Allerton, v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 396, 399-400 [ 23 O.O.3d 358 ] (dissenting opinion); State, ex rel. Berry, v. Indus. Comm. (1983), 4 Ohio St. 3d 193, 196-198 (C. Brown, J., concurring separately).
J. P. Celebrezze, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.