Application for Increase In PPD Denied for Failure to Demonstrate New and Changing Circumstances to Justify Modification of Prior Award: In State ex rel. Casper v. McGra Edison Serv. (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 113, 548 N.E.2d 231, the claimant filed an application for an increase in her PPD award after a final commission determination that she had a two percent PPD, following a July 30, 1986 hearing on her initial application. In support of her application for an increase in her PPD, the claimant submitted the July 22, 1986 report of Dr. Cameron that pre-dated the July 30, 1986 hearing. In Casper, the commission denied the claimant's application for an increase in her PPD "for failure to demonstrate new and changed circumstances such as to justify a modification of the prior award." Id. at 113. the claimant then filed a complaint in mandamus in this court. This court denied the writ and the claimant then appealed as of right to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Casper court affirmed the judgment of this court. After quoting the above-quoted portion of R.C. 4123.57(A), the Casper court explained: Appellant's application for an increase in her award was accompanied only by Dr. Cameron's July 22, 1986 report. Appellant's initial permanent partial disability hearing, however, was on July 30, 1986. Regardless of its content, a medical report that predates the original permanent partial disability determination is not substantial evidence of new and changed circumstances occurring thereafter. the commission was thus correct in dismissing appellant's application for an increase in her award. Id. at 114.