In State ex rel. Fresh Mark, Inc. v. Mihm (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 417, 1992 Ohio 29, 604 N.E.2d 753, the commission's orders awarded compensation for impaired earning capacity, but stated that the awards were "based on the medical reports of Dr. Steiman." Id. at 418. However, there were no such reports from a Dr. Steiman contained in the record. In earlier orders determining the claimant's percentage of PPD, reliance was placed on the reports of Drs. Kackley, McCloud and Hubbell. In Fresh Mark, the court resolved the problem as follows: Given the commission's reliance on the reports of these three doctors in its earlier determinations, and the fact that the record contains no reports of a "Dr. Steiman," we are convinced that the commission's reference to "Dr. Steiman" in its orders awarding compensation for impaired earning capacity were inadvertent errors. In State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 481, 483-484, 6 Ohio B. 531, 453 N.E.2d 721, and a number of other cases, we have stressed the importance of specificity of commission orders and have required that such orders contain a citation to the evidence relied upon and a brief explanation of the decision granting or denying benefits. In Mitchell, we stated that "this court will 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. Our decision today does not represent a departure from the general rule of Mitchell and its progeny. Rather, we emphasize that, in the case at bar, the commission's citations to the reports of Dr. Steiman were clearly mistakes (perhaps clerical errors) and that a mere cursory examination of the record supports the commission's orders granting Bowman benefits for impaired earning. On these facts, we uphold the commission's orders. Id. at 419-420.