State ex rel. Boyd v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. (Slip Opinion)
146 Ohio St. 3d 3
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Robert Boyd, former Scotts employee, had an allowed 2005 workers’ compensation claim for asbestosis and applied in 2013 for permanent-total-disability (PTD) benefits.
- Boyd submitted an independent IME report from Dr. Marissa Mertz supporting PTD; Scotts submitted a file review by Dr. Robert Shadel; the Industrial Commission had pulmonologist Dr. Herbert Grodner examine Boyd.
- Dr. Grodner reviewed records (including CT and x-rays), performed an exam and pulmonary-function testing, and concluded Boyd had only a mild restrictive impairment and could perform light work.
- A commission staff hearing officer denied PTD based on Drs. Shadel and Grodner and the commission’s vocational-factor analysis; vocational consultant Molly Williams opined Boyd was PTD.
- Boyd sought a writ of mandamus from the court of appeals; the appeals court denied relief. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the commission’s order was supported by some evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commission improperly relied on Dr. Grodner’s report | Boyd: Grodner lacked a B-reader x-ray interpretation and did not take x-rays, so his opinion is disqualified under Resolution R03-1-02 | Commission/Scotts: Resolution R03-1-02 governs initial claim allowance and worker-submitted evidence; it does not bar Grodner’s post-allowance IME opinion | Held: Reversed by Boyd — Resolution R03-1-02 did not apply; Grodner’s report was admissible evidence and supported the denial |
| Whether the Commission was required to adopt uncontroverted vocational consultant opinion | Boyd: Williams’s uncontradicted vocational report (age, no driving) shows PTD and must be accepted | Commission: Commission is exclusive evaluator of vocational disability and may weigh or reject vocational reports and use its own analysis | Held: Commission may reject vocational consultant and perform its own analysis; it permissibly rejected Williams’s conclusion |
| Whether Commission abused discretion by denying PTD when record contained contrary evidence | Boyd: Existence of contrary vocational and medical evidence required award of PTD | Commission/Scotts: Some evidence (Grodner, file review) supported denial; standard is whether some evidence supports the order | Held: No abuse of discretion; court’s review limited to whether some evidence supports the commission’s decision |
| Applicability of administrative resolution requirements to post-allowance PTD examinations | Boyd: R03-1-02’s B-reader and x-ray requirements bind specialists giving disability opinions | Commission: R03-1-02 applies to initial diagnosis/allowance and to evidence the injured worker must submit; not to commission-ordered exams after allowance | Held: R03-1-02 does not apply to Grodner’s commission-ordered IME; requirements do not invalidate his opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Guthrie v. Indus. Comm., 977 N.E.2d 643 (Ohio 2012) (defines permanent total disability as inability to perform sustained remunerative employment)
- State ex rel. Liposchak v. Indus. Comm., 737 N.E.2d 519 (Ohio 2000) (mandamus is proper vehicle to challenge commission’s disability determination)
- State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 508 N.E.2d 936 (Ohio 1987) (review limited to whether some evidence supports the commission’s order)
- State ex rel. Jackson v. Indus. Comm., 680 N.E.2d 1233 (Ohio 1997) (commission is exclusive evaluator of vocational evidence and may reject vocational reports)
- State ex rel. Ehlinger v. Indus. Comm., 667 N.E.2d 1210 (Ohio 1996) (advanced age is not necessarily an insurmountable barrier to reemployment)
- State ex rel. Moss v. Indus. Comm., 662 N.E.2d 364 (Ohio 1996) (vocational factors must be weighed by the commission)