State ex rel. Burroughs v. Ohio Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys. Bd. (Slip Opinion)
81 N.E.3d 461
Ohio2017Background
- Jeffrey Burroughs, an Ohio state trooper, received disability retirement in 2011 after cervical discectomy and fusion and medical opinions that he was permanently unable to perform trooper duties.
- In 2014 the board learned Burroughs completed the “Savage Race,” an extreme 5–7 mile obstacle event, and ordered an independent medical examination by Dr. Nancy Vaughan.
- Dr. Vaughan’s exam found no tenderness, no muscle atrophy, full range of motion, intact sensation and strength, concluded Burroughs was "fully recovered," and that he could perform trooper duties; the board’s medical adviser concurred.
- The board terminated Burroughs’s disability benefits effective August 21, 2014; Burroughs appealed and submitted contrary opinions from treating physicians recommending a physical-capacity evaluation.
- The Tenth District granted a limited writ directing the board to conduct a physical-capacity evaluation; the Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding the board had no duty to order such testing and that its termination was supported by some evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether board had duty to conduct a physical-capacity evaluation before terminating benefits | Burroughs: board should be ordered to perform formal physical-capacity testing before termination | Board: no statutory or regulatory duty to conduct such testing; board may rely on independent medical exam and other evidence | Court: No duty; court of appeals erred in creating one and granting limited writ |
| Whether board’s termination was supported by sufficient evidence | Burroughs: Savage Race alone does not show ability to perform all trooper duties; treating physicians disagree | Board: independent exam by Dr. Vaughan and board medical adviser’s concurrence plus Savage Race constitute "some evidence" | Court: Termination supported by some evidence (Dr. Vaughan’s exam and adviser’s concurrence); court of appeals abused discretion |
| Whether appellate court may substitute its judgment for board on weight/credibility of medical evidence | Burroughs: contested credibility warrants further inquiry/testing | Board: credibility and weight are for board; mandamus only for abuse of discretion | Court: Appellate court improperly weighed evidence and substituted its view; mandamus not warranted |
| Whether precedent supports granting limited writ to require additional testing | Burroughs: cites cases where limited writs were used in analogous contexts | Board: those precedents do not impose a testing duty here | Court: Distinguished precedents (Posey, etc.); limited writ not justified here |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327 (2002) (courts cannot create legal duties enforceable by mandamus)
- State ex rel. Posey v. Indus. Comm., 12 Ohio St.3d 298 (1984) (limited writ appropriate where record lacks sufficient medical evidence to decide causation/entitlement)
- State ex rel. Pontillo v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys. Bd., 98 Ohio St.3d 500 (2003) (declined to compel board to consider late-submitted evidence; administrative appeal adequate)
- State ex rel. Woodman v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 144 Ohio St.3d 367 (2015) (board order unsupported by some evidence constitutes abuse of discretion)
- State ex rel. Grein v. Ohio State Highway Patrol Retirement Sys., 116 Ohio St.3d 344 (2007) (courts will not disturb retirement-board decisions supported by sufficient evidence)