concurring. Because the per curiam opinion recognizes the continuing validity of 'the enigmatic “some evidence” rule (see dissents in State, ex rel. Kilburn, v. Indus. Comm. [1982], 1 Ohio St. 3d 103, at 105-106; State, ex rel. Allerton, v. Indus. Comm. [1982], 69 Ohio St. 2d 396, at 399-400 [23 O.O.3d 358]; State, ex rel. Teece, v. Indus. Comm. [1981], 68 Ohio St. 2d 165, at 170-174 [22 O.O.3d 400]), I concur in the judgment only.