State ex rel. Coseno v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 8973
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Relator Joseph L. Coseno was allowed claims for left inguinal hernia, left ilioinguinal neuralgia/neuritis, and major depressive disorder from an August 26, 2013 workplace injury.
- Treating physician Todd Hochman, M.D., initially opined Coseno had not reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) and later certified work restrictions covering Feb 26–July 20, 2015; Coseno also saw Dr. Jane Bistline in Florida who recommended an ilioinguinal nerve block.
- A physician file review by L.J. Mascarenhas, M.D., concluded Coseno had reached MMI and recommended denial of TTD for the claimed period.
- A district hearing officer (DHO) and a staff hearing officer (SHO) denied Coseno’s request for temporary total disability (TTD) compensation, relying in part on Dr. Mascarenhas’ file review and finding certain medical certifications were not based on contemporaneous examinations or supporting C-9 treatment requests.
- The Industrial Commission refused further review; Coseno filed mandamus in this court seeking an order granting TTD. The magistrate recommended denial; the appellate court adopted the magistrate’s decision and denied the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commission abused discretion by denying TTD for Feb 26–July 20, 2015 | Coseno: treating physicians (Hochman, Bistline) show ongoing need for treatment and no MMI; TTD appropriate until injections/exhaustion of treatment | Commission: medical file review (Mascarenhas) constitutes some evidence of MMI; deficiencies in contemporaneous exams and lack of C-9s support denial | Denied relief — commission had some evidence (Mascarenhas) and did not abuse discretion |
| Whether SHO’s miscitation of administrative code and minor factual errors invalidated the denial | Coseno: SHO misapplied law (wrong Ohio Adm.Code) and misstated gap length — these errors warrant a writ | Commission: citation was typographical (should be 4123-5-18), errors were minor, relator had notice of the grounds (noncontemporaneous exam, gaps) | Miscitation and small factual mistakes did not constitute reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v. Foreman, 79 Ohio St.3d 78 (1997) (issues not raised administratively may not be raised first in a mandamus action)
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (1983) (three requirements for mandamus)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (mandamus review of Industrial Commission decisions requires clear legal right and duty)
- State ex rel. Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (1986) (mandamus proper only if commission order unsupported by any evidence)
- State ex rel. Lewis v. Diamond Foundry Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 56 (1987) (some evidence standard defeats mandamus where record supports commission)
- State ex rel. Teece v. Indus. Comm., 68 Ohio St.2d 165 (1981) (credibility and weight of medical evidence are for the commission)
- State ex rel. Ramirez v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.2d 630 (1982) (TTD ends when claimant reaches MMI or other statutory events occur)
- State ex rel. Pass v. C.S.T. Extraction Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 373 (1996) (appellate court will not substitute its view when some evidence supports commission)