# State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc.

> Ohio Supreme Court · June 3, 1987 · 31 Ohio St. 3d 18

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759777

## Case

- **Full name:** The State, ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc. Industrial Commission of Ohio
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 3, 1987
- **Citations:** 31 Ohio St. 3d 18; 31 Ohio B. 70; 508 N.E.2d 936; 1987 Ohio LEXIS 287
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Douglas
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Moyer, Only, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 367 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759777

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "[t]he commission alone shall be responsible for the evaluation of the weight and credibility of the evidence before it. This court's role in the review of mandamus actions challenging the Industrial Commission's decision as to the extent of disability in cases in…
- stating that the party challenging the disability determination bears the burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion, and “abuse of discretion has been repeatedly defined as a showing that the * * * decision was rendered without some evidence to support it”
- stating that issues of weight and credibility of evidence lie outside the scope of mandamus inquiry

## Opinion text

Douglas, J.,
concurring. For the reasons stated, where herein pertinent, in my concurring opinion in State, ex rel. Rouch, v. Eagle Tool & Machine Co. (1986), 26 Ohio St. 3d 197, 201-217 , 26 OBR 289, 292-306, 498 N.E. 2d 464, 468-480 , I concur in the syllabus and judgment of the court.
I write separately to emphasize the fact that the standard of review set forth in this decision incorporates the reporting requirements pronounced in State, ex rel. Mitchell, v. Robbins & Myers, Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 481 , 6 OBR 531, 453 N.E. 2d 721 . In Mitchell, this court recognized that a good deal of the litigation generated in this field was the result of the commission’s failure to provide sufficient reasoning in support of its determinations. In an effort to rectify this problem, this court required the commission to state with specificity which evidence it had relied upon in reaching its conclusion and to provide a brief explanation stating why the claimant is or is not entitled to the benefits requested. As a means of compelling compliance with these reporting requirements, this court declared that it would “* * * no longer search the commission’s file for ‘some evidence’ to support an order of the commission not otherwise specified as a basis for its decision.” Id. at 484 , 6 OBR at 534, 453 N.E. 2d at 724 . The syllabus law presented in the case at bar similarly limits this court’s review to the commission’s “* * * stated basis for its decision.”
The reporting requirements of Mitchell not only provide this court with the necessary tools to perform a meaningful mandamus review of the commission’s determinations, but such reporting also lends a sense of predictability for claimants and employers alike in the disposition of disability claims. By providing the parties with a brief explanation as to how the various disability factors, such as age, education and work history, affect the medically appraised degree of impairment, the commission affords future litigants invaluable insight into its decision-making process. This insight-should eventually translate into a more predictable and less litigious system.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759777. Public record. Not legal advice.