State ex rel. Fultz v. Industrial Commission
Ohio
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2020State ex rel. Digiacinto v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion) Ohio
- 2017State ex rel. McCormick v. Indus. Comm. Ohio Ct. App.
- 2017State ex rel. Rumpke Consol. Cos., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. Ohio Ct. App.
- 2016State ex rel. Scott v. Indus. Comm. Ohio Ct. App.
- 2015State ex rel. Washington v. Indus. Comm. Ohio Ct. App.
- 2014State ex rel. Crawford v. Indus. Comm. Ohio Ct. App.
- 2013State ex rel. Brahler v. Kent State Univ. Ohio Ct. App.
- 2008State ex rel. Showa Aluminum Corp. of America v. Industrial Commission Ohio Ct. App.
- 2008State ex rel. Scouler v. Industrial Commission Ohio
- 2007State ex rel. Barnes v. Industrial Commission Ohio
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
The State ex rel. Fultz, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee.
Judges
- Moyer, C.J., AW. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.
Attorneys
- Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A, Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, for appellant.
- Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, and Dennis L. Hufstader, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
This controversy centers on a Noll sufficiency review and, if the order is found lacking, the relief deemed appropriate. Upon review, we find a Noll consideration to be premature, but for the reasons set forth below, we nonetheless affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Neither the commission’s rehabilitation report nor Riccio’s vocational report is listed in the commission’s order as being among the evidence the commission considered. While the commission correctly contends in essence that it need only enumerate the evidence relied on, the fact that the commission in listing the evidence considered omitted those two reports from that list, leads to only one conclusion — the commission either inadvertently or intentionally ignored that evidence. Because these reports could be the key to the success or failure of claimant’s application, the cause must be returned to the commission for further consideration.
Accordingly, the appellate judgment is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., AW. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.