2018 Ohio 3386
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Claimant Gary Bisdorf has two allowed industrial claims (left knee and right shoulder) with multiple surgeries, including a left total knee arthroplasty and right shoulder repairs.
- Bisdorf submitted a PTD (permanent total disability) application in Nov. 2015 supported by chiropractic Dr. David Grunstein’s functional-capacity report and narrative concluding he is permanently and totally disabled.
- Navistar obtained an orthopedist (Dr. Holzaeffel) and the commission obtained an examination by Dr. James Rutherford; both provided medical opinions with specific坐/stand/lift limits (Holzaeffel: capable of sustained employment with restrictions; Rutherford: concluded claimant is incapable of even sedentary work).
- A staff hearing officer (SHO) awarded PTD effective Oct. 22, 2015, relying on the reports of Drs. Grunstein and Rutherford and finding no need to analyze non-medical factors.
- Navistar filed this mandamus action arguing the medical reports do not constitute "some evidence" to support PTD; the magistrate and court subsequently reviewed whether Grunstein’s and Rutherford’s reports supplied some evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Navistar) | Defendant's Argument (Commission / Bisdorf) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Rutherford's reports provide "some evidence" that claimant cannot perform sustained remunerative employment | Rutherford's conclusion that claimant "is incapable of work" is inconsistent, conclusory, or unsupported by his own findings | Rutherford’s specific restrictions (no repetitive pushing/pulling, no stooping/climbing/crawling, limited standing/walking, 5–10 lb lift) are consistent with precluding even sedentary work | Held: Rutherford’s findings supply some evidence that sedentary work is precluded, so his opinion may support PTD. |
| Whether Dr. Grunstein's reports provide "some evidence" supporting PTD | Grunstein’s narrative conclusory; his FCE (functional capacity evaluation) does not justify ruling out part-time/sedentary work | Grunstein’s FCE limited standing/walking to ~1 hour and sitting to 2–3 hours (≈3–4 hours total), which can reasonably be viewed as precluding sustained remunerative employment | Held: Grunstein’s reports constitute some evidence supporting the SHO’s finding that claimant cannot perform sustained remunerative employment. |
| Whether the magistrate erred by applying Bonnlander (Ohio Supreme Court) to interpret hourly limits for sustained employment | Bonnlander prohibits adopting a bright-line hourly rule; magistrate erred by treating hourly totals as dispositive | Bonnlander allows commission discretion; there is no fixed hourly rule but the commission may rely on medical opinions addressing hours and breaks in context | Held: Magistrate properly applied Bonnlander’s principle that the commission decides case-by-case and may rely on medical work-hour findings; Bonnlander does not bar the commission’s use of Grunstein’s hourly limits. |
| Whether non-medical factors or claimant’s prior part-time work (gunshop until 2010) undermine the medical opinions | Prior part-time work and non-medical factors show claimant could perform some employment; medical reports didn’t account for that history | Medical exams occurred in 2015–2016 and assess current capacity; prior work years earlier does not invalidate current medical opinions | Held: Prior gunshop work did not invalidate the 2015–2016 medical opinions; commission permissibly relied on the medical evidence without needing to analyze non-medical factors once medical impairment alone precluded work. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bonnlander v. Hamon, 150 Ohio St.3d 567 (2017) (no bright-line hourly standard; commission decides sustained remunerative employment case-by-case)
- State ex rel. Speelman v. Indus. Comm., 73 Ohio App.3d 757 (10th Dist. 1992) (if medical impairment alone precludes work, non-medical factors need not be analyzed)