In State ex rel. Am. Natl. Red Cross v. Smith, Franklin App. No. 05AP-66, 2005 Ohio 5650, the commission awarded PTD compensation to Clinton L. Smith based upon a report from treating physician Dr. Gurley who opined that Smith "is permanently and totally disabled due to his residual signs and symptoms related to the specific workers compensation injury." Id. at P9. As reported in the Smith case, Dr. Gurley further reported: Mr. Smith suffers not only chronic residual pain syndrome but severe and functionally disabling residual neurological signs and symptoms resulting from his index injury and the associated spinal cord injury which was associated with this injury. His residual cervical myelopathy will, again within reasonable medical certainty, will not improve and has even been shown in the medical literature to possess potential for progression in spite of adequate surgical decompression and stabilization. This is a paramount consideration in determining the fact that his myelopathy leaves him with permanent functional limitations in the form of gait and motor disturbances and limitations as well as chronic pain. With extensive experience in the field of management of spinal injuries in the workers compensation sector, it is my opinion, that within a reasonable degree of medical probability and certainty, Mr. Clinton's sic Smith has reached maximal medical improvement with severe residual and functionally disabling impairments which are permanent in character. It is also my opinion that a he would be unable to achieve or sustain or engage in any employment in the foreseeable future. It is my opinion that, within the classifications of the functional capacity evaluation, he would not even be able to function with in a sedentary classification. Id. In Smith, this court held that Dr. Gurley's report was some evidence supporting the commission's PTD award. This court reasoned: Dr. Gurley's notation that claimant suffers from "chronic residual pain syndrome" does not require, as relator suggests, that the staff hearing officer conclude the doctor considered a non-allowed condition. The staff hearing officer properly could view Dr. Gurley's report as addressing a symptom caused by claimant's allowed condition, as Dr. Gurley specifically relates the pain to claimant's industrial injury. Id. at P3.