State ex rel. Seabolt v. State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys.
2018 Ohio 1377
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Relator Benjamin Seabolt, an Ohio State Highway Patrol member, applied for disability retirement under R.C. 5505.18, asserting onset of symptoms on December 22, 2015 and marking the condition as in the line of duty.
- Medical evidence included treating providers (chiropractor Christian Gedeon; neurosurgeon Christian Bonasso), an IME by Dr. Michael Griesser (appointed examiner), and review reports by HPRS medical advisor Dr. David Tanner.
- Dr. Griesser concluded Seabolt is totally and permanently incapacitated for patrol duties but did not opine whether the condition was in the line of duty.
- Dr. Tanner agreed Seabolt was disabled but concluded the condition was congenital/degenerative and pre-existing (no substantial MRI change between 2013 and 2016), therefore not in the line of duty.
- The HPRS Health, Wellness & Disability Committee and the full HPRS board recommended and approved disability retirement "not in the line of duty." Seabolt filed an original action for a writ of mandamus to compel the board to change the determination to "in the line of duty."
- The magistrate and this court found that Dr. Tanner’s reports provided some/sufficient evidence supporting the board’s determination; mandamus was denied and objections overruled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HPRS abused discretion by finding the disability was not in the line of duty | Seabolt: No medical foundation for Dr. Tanner’s conclusion; Tanner misinterpreted "pre-existing" and improperly relied on paper review | HPRS: Dr. Tanner’s independent review provided competent medical opinion that condition was congenital/degenerative and not caused or substantially aggravated by duties | The board did not abuse discretion; Tanner’s reports constitute sufficient evidence to support the "not in the line of duty" finding |
| Whether an examining physician must opine on line-of-duty causation to satisfy R.C. 5505.18 | Seabolt: Dr. Griesser failed to state cause/mechanism, so record lacks required finding | HPRS: The statutory/regulatory scheme permits the board’s appointed medical advisor to review the record and offer the requisite opinion; examiner need not identify mechanism | Court: Examiner’s omission did not invalidate decision because medical advisor’s report supplied the necessary cause/opinion support |
| Whether a non-examining medical advisor may render an authoritative opinion | Seabolt: Paper review by non-examiner is inadequate for causation conclusions | HPRS: Medical advisor may render an independent opinion based on records; rule change later codified this practice | Court: Medical advisor’s paper-review opinions are permissible and provided sufficient evidence |
| Whether conflicting medical opinions require the board to favor treating/consultative physicians over its own advisor | Seabolt: Treating and consulting physicians attributed injury to duty (service belt, repetitive ingress/egress) and should control | HPRS: Board is not required to accept one expert over another; conflicting opinions do not remove sufficiency of evidence from advisor | Court: Presence of contrary medical opinions is inconsequential; board may credit the medical advisor’s opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Burroughs v. Ohio Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys. Bd., 150 Ohio St.3d 326 (2017) (board’s benefits determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion; some evidence standard)
- State ex rel. Grein v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys., 116 Ohio St.3d 344 (2007) (sufficient/some evidence standard for retirement-board decisions)
- State ex rel. Nese v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 103 (2013) (quantum of evidence required for retirement decisions is not heavy)
- State ex rel. Woodman v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 144 Ohio St.3d 367 (2015) (board abuses discretion only if order not supported by some evidence)
- State ex rel. Crosby v. Dept. of Mental Retardation, 38 Ohio St.3d 179 (1988) (mandamus available to correct an abuse of discretion in administrative benefits determinations)