Opinion
No. 80-1350
Decided June 17, 1981.
Workers' compensation — Permanent and total disability award — Supported by evidence, when — Mandamus relief denied.
IN MANDAMUS.
This original action arises out of an occupational disease claim filed on March 18, 1974, with the Bureau of Workers' Compensation by Floyd Burris, a former employee of relator, GF Business Equipment, Inc. Burris' claim requested benefits for chronic bronchitis as a result of breathing dust from brass grindings in the course of his employment.
The commission referred claimant to Dr. F.G. Kravec, a pulmonary specialist, who, after examination, concluded: "This patient has been totally and permanently disabled by an industrial occupational disease — chronic bronchitis and emphysema." Claimant was also examined by Dr. I.N. Dombczewsky, another specialist, at the request of the commission. His medical opinion stated: "The patient has been totally and permanently disabled because of industrial occupational disease, chronic bronchitis and emphysema."
On June 1, 1977, and on July 17, 1978, a District Hearing Officer awarded claimant temporary total disability benefits for "chronic bronchitis and emphysema." These decisions were later affirmed by the Canton Regional Board of Review.
On April 2, 1979, Burris filed a motion for permanent total disability benefits, based upon medical evidence of record in his prior claim. On March 19, 1980, the Industrial Commission held hearings and found claimant to be permanently and totally disabled, commencing January 17, 1977.
Relator filed a complaint in mandamus with this court seeking an order directing the Industrial Commission to vacate its award of permanent total disability.
Messrs. Harrington, Huxley, Smith and Mr. Robert A. Lenga, for relator. Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Lee M. Smith, for respondent Industrial Commission.
Mr. John R. Workman, for respondent Floyd Burris.
Relator contends that the commission abused its discretion in sustaining claimant's motion for permanent total disability benefits. We find this contention to be without merit.
Essentially, relator asks this court to reweigh the medical evidence. It is well established that "* * * the determination of disputed factual situations is within the final jurisdiction of the Industrial Commission, and subject to correction by action in mandamus only upon a showing of abuse of discretion." State, ex rel. Haines, v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 15, 16. See, also, State, ex rel. Reed, v. Indus. Comm. (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 200; State, ex rel. Allied Wheel Products, v. Indus. Comm. (1956), 166 Ohio St. 47.
This court has repeatedly held that where the record contains some evidence which supports the commission's factual findings, such findings will not be disturbed. State, ex rel. Humble, v. Mark Concepts, Inc. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 77; State, ex rel. Davis, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 60 Ohio St.2d 160; State, ex rel. Republic Steel, v. Indus. Comm. (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 193; State, ex rel. Dodson, v. Indus. Comm. (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 408. Examination of the record indicates that the medical opinions of Dr. Kravec and Dr. Dombczewsky constitute some evidence which support the commission's factual determinations.
Accordingly, the writ of mandamus is denied.
Writ denied.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES and C. BROWN, JJ., concur.