State ex rel. Levandowski v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 1171
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Richard J. Levandowski sustained a 1999 work injury; his claim was allowed for physical conditions (including L4 herniation) and major depressive disorder.
- Levandowski previously received TTD for physical conditions until MMI in 2001 and later sought additional TTD for Feb–Nov 2008 (denied).
- He filed a C-86 seeking TTD from Dec 29, 2008, onward based on the allowed major depressive disorder, supported by treating psychologist James Medling, Ph.D.
- The commission ordered an independent evaluation by Donald J. Tosi, Ph.D., who concluded Levandowski’s depression was largely attributable to nonwork life stressors, was mild/chronic, and that there was no convincing evidence of temporary total disability.
- The district hearing officer and staff hearing officer denied TTD relying on Dr. Tosi’s reports; the commission refused further appeal. Levandowski sought mandamus to compel an award of TTD.
- The court adopted the magistrate’s decision denying the writ: the commission complied with Mitchell/Noll by stating the evidence relied upon, and Dr. Tosi’s reports constituted some evidence supporting denial, so no abuse of discretion occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the commission violated Mitchell/Noll by failing to state evidentiary basis for denial of TTD | Levandowski: order is unclear whether it relied on Dr. Tosi and thus failed to state evidentiary basis | Commission: order explicitly cites and summarizes Dr. Tosi’s reports and the portions relied upon | Court: Commission complied with Mitchell/Noll; it identified and discussed Dr. Tosi’s opinions |
| Whether the commission abused its discretion by denying TTD when treating Dr. Medling attributed depression to the work injury | Levandowski: Medling opined depression (and resulting TTD) was a direct result of the allowed injury; combined effects support award | Commission: independent examiner Dr. Tosi found nonwork stressors predominated and the work-related contribution was mild and not disabling | Court: No abuse of discretion; credibility/weight are for commission and Tosi’s reports provided some evidence to deny TTD |
| Whether dual causation (work + nonwork factors) required awarding TTD | Levandowski: even if other stressors contributed, dual causation means allowed condition contributed substantially to disability | Commission: Dr. Tosi did not find the work-related contribution to be a substantial factor causing disability | Court: Webb (dual-causation) inapplicable; evidence showed the allowed condition’s effect was mild and insufficient to establish TTD |
| Whether equivocal language in Dr. Tosi’s report required rejecting it | Levandowski: Tosi’s statements (e.g., "moderate" vs "mild") are inconsistent/equivocal | Commission: the report consistently showed that nonwork factors predominated and that work-related depression was not disabling | Court: Report was not inconsistent in a way that undercuts its probative value; commission reasonably relied on it |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., 6 Ohio St.3d 481 (1983) (commission must indicate the evidence relied upon when denying a claim)
- State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.3d 203 (1991) (Mitchell requirements apply to commission orders)
- State ex rel. Waddle v. Indus. Comm., 67 Ohio St.3d 452 (1993) (non-allowed conditions cannot advance or defeat an award; useful analog for multiple causative factors)
- State ex rel. Webb v. Indus. Comm., 76 Ohio App.3d 701 (10th Dist. 1991) (discusses dual-causation and substantial-factor analysis)