In Slater v. Indus. Comm., Franklin App. No. 06AP-1137, 2007-Ohio-4413, it appeared from the SHO's order that the SHO did not believe that the relator's "nonindustrial carcinoma" excused him from pursuing vocational rehabilitation. As reported by his attending physician, because Slater had to undergo chemotherapy and radiation and had a tracheostomy and feeding tube, he had to forego rehabilitation aimed at improving his allowed back conditions. As this court noted in Slater, nonallowed medical conditions cannot be used to advance or defeat a claim for compensation. State ex rel. Waddle v. Indus. Comm. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 452, 619 N.E.2d 1018. Thus, if the nonindustrial carcinoma prevented Slater from pursuing vocational rehabilitation, the failure to pursue rehabilitation cannot be used to defeat his PTD application. In Slater, this court, speaking through its magistrate, determined that it was an abuse of discretion for the commission to hold Slater accountable for his failure to pursue vocational rehabilitation absent any reasoning supported by some evidence in the SHO's order. In Slater, this court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the commission to vacate its order denying Slater's PTD application and, in a manner consistent with the magistrate's decision, enter a new order that adjudicates the PTD application.