2019 Ohio 2459
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Teresa Ewart, an STRS member and former teacher, was approved for disability retirement in 2015 for chronic hoarseness/vocal-cord problems after treating with ENT Dr. Bryson.
- STRS obtained periodic independent exams (Dr. Forrest initially; later psychiatric review by Dr. Steinberg and additional ENTs) and ultimately, in 2017, the STRS Board terminated Ewart's disability benefits after the medical review board recommended termination.
- Key medical disagreement: treating ENT (Bryson) continued to find vocal impairment and poor prognosis; independent examiners variously found limited objective pathology, atypical pain disproportionate to findings, possible psychological/functional contribution, and opinions that she could return to teaching.
- On administrative appeal, STRS obtained another independent ENT exam (Dr. O’Brien) and file reviews (Drs. Allen, Hutzler) supporting termination; STRB affirmed termination after an appeal hearing.
- Ewart filed for a writ of mandamus in common pleas court; that court granted the writ, finding STRB’s decision lacked "some evidence," and (in part) disregarded Dr. O’Brien’s report because STRB did not return it to the medical review board as the court read the rules to require.
- The Tenth District reversed in part and remanded: it held the trial court erred in disregarding Dr. O’Brien and in failing to consider file-review opinions of Drs. Allen and Hutzler; it affirmed trial court treatment of Dr. Forrest and Dr. Steinberg but remanded for the court to determine whether O’Brien’s and the file reviewers’ opinions constitute "some evidence."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ewart) | Defendant's Argument (STRB) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether STRB had "some evidence" to terminate benefits | STRB decision lacked some evidence; board relied on irrelevant/insufficient reports; psychiatric opinions irrelevant to Voice-only disability | STRB relied on independent examiner reports and expert file reviews showing insufficient objective findings and ability to work | Court: Remand — trial court erred by excluding certain evidence; must reconsider whether remaining/new evidence (esp. Dr. O’Brien and file reviews) supplies "some evidence." |
| 2) Weight/use of Dr. Forrest's reports (ENT who repeatedly examined Ewart) | Forrest’s opinions were equivocal/unchanged; STRB previously discounted similar reports when granting benefits, so they cannot now be the basis for termination | STRB: Forrest clarified ENT-only opinion concluding no objective barrier to teaching; his clarified opinion supports termination | Court: Trial court did not abuse discretion in finding Forrest’s reports not constituting new "some evidence" because his findings were materially similar across time and STRB had earlier declined to rely on similar reports when granting benefits |
| 3) Relevance of psychiatric opinion (Dr. Steinberg) | Psychiatric opinions are irrelevant because benefits were granted for a voice disorder; Steinberg’s report does not justify termination of voice-based disability | STRB: Psychiatric findings (including failed validity test and depression diagnosis) support that symptoms may be non-organic or non-disabling and thus support termination | Court: STRB failed to show Steinberg’s psychiatric opinion made termination proper here; trial court did not abuse discretion in treating Steinberg’s report as irrelevant/insufficient on the voice-only disability issue |
| 4) Admissibility/consideration of Dr. O’Brien’s independent exam (post-appeal) | STRB erred by failing to return Dr. O’Brien’s report to the medical review board as required by rules; trial court properly disregarded it | STRB: Administrative rules (Ohio Adm.Code 3307:1-7-05(B)(5)(e)) permit but do not require returning a new examiner’s report to the medical review board; O’Brien’s exam may be considered | Court: The code uses "may"; STRB was not required to route O’Brien’s report to the medical review board. Trial court erred to disregard O’Brien’s report; remanded for determination whether it (and file reviews) supply "some evidence." |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Hulls v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 113 Ohio St.3d 438 (2007) (mandamus available to remedy STRB abuse of discretion; board decision on disability is within its province)
- State ex rel. Menz v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 144 Ohio St.3d 26 (2015) (independent examiner and medical-review-board process described; STRB may involve medical-review-board on appeals)
- State ex rel. Altman-Bates v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 148 Ohio St.3d 21 (2016) (abuse-of-discretion standard; "some evidence" suffices for board action)
- State ex rel. Wegman v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 155 Ohio St.3d 223 (2018) (medical expert file review can be "some evidence"; detail affects weight/credibility)
- State ex rel. Starr v. Indus. Comm., 114 Ohio St.3d 449 (2007) (file-review medical opinion may constitute some evidence)