State ex rel. Wegman v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund
2016 Ohio 8270
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Relator Donald A. Wegman, a former firefighter/paramedic, applied to OP&F for disability benefits after resigning; he claimed multiple conditions (left knee, cardiac/SVT, right shoulder, vision, hearing, back).
- OP&F obtained medical exams and file reviews: treating/examining physicians (Young, Soderstrum, Stanfield, Evans) and OP&F reviewers/medical advisor (Talmadge, Jewell), plus vocational reports.
- Examining physicians found various impairments (e.g., Young ~36% whole-person aggregate; Soderstrum ~31%; Evans found anxiety disorder disabling) and recommended limitations; OP&F reviewers reduced or rejected some findings (Talmadge: 4% off-duty; Jewell: psychological 0%).
- OP&F awarded Wegman a 12% off-duty disability based primarily on Dr. Jewell’s medical-advisor review and vocational opinion of moderate/severe wage loss; Wegman sought a writ of mandamus to increase the award and classify right shoulder and psychological conditions as disabling.
- The magistrate recommended denying the writ; the Tenth District independently reviewed the record, found some evidence supporting OP&F’s decision, overruled Wegman’s objections, and denied the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OP&F abused discretion by finding Wegman's right shoulder non-disabling | Wegman: treating and examining doctors show right-shoulder impairment that is disabling | OP&F: medical-advisor and file-review physicians reasonably concluded shoulder not disabling (measurements within error; limited post-resignation treatment) | Court: No abuse of discretion; file reviews constitute some evidence supporting non-disabling finding |
| Whether OP&F abused discretion by finding psychological condition non-disabling | Wegman: treating psychologist and Dr. Evans found anxiety/PTSD-level problems that impair employment | OP&F: medical-advisor (Dr. Jewell) reviewed files and found no impairment; board may weigh credibility/extent of exaggeration noted by examiner | Court: No abuse of discretion; OP&F may credit its medical advisor and reject other physicians’ conclusions; Jewell’s report is some evidence |
| Whether OP&F must explain basis for denial or must accept treating physicians | Wegman: OP&F should not rely on cursory advisor reports over treating doctors | OP&F: not required by statute/rule to provide detailed explanation and has exclusive authority to weigh medical evidence | Court: OP&F has no duty to state basis; may weigh and reject physician conclusions; presence of contrary evidence is immaterial if some evidence supports decision |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Tindira v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 130 Ohio St.3d 62 (board not required to state basis for denial when no statute/rule requires it)
- State ex rel. Kolcinko v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 131 Ohio St.3d 111 (OP&F has exclusive authority to evaluate weight and credibility of medical evidence)
- State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327 (board need not credit any particular physician)
- State ex rel. Worrell v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 112 Ohio St.3d 116 (mandamus proper to correct abuse of discretion by OP&F)
- Kinsey v. Bd. of Trustees of Police & Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund, 49 Ohio St.3d 224 (mandamus standard: abuse of discretion/some evidence)
- State ex rel. Spohn v. Indus. Comm., 115 Ohio St.3d 329 (contrary evidence immaterial if some evidence supports agency finding)
- State ex rel. Lecklider v. School Emps. Retirement Sys., 104 Ohio St.3d 271 (courts cannot create legal duties not found in statute for mandamus relief)