THE STATE EX REL. PIPOLY, APPELLANT, v. STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, APPELLEE.
No. 2001-1797
Supreme Court of Ohio
May 22, 2002
95 Ohio St.3d 327 | 2002-Ohio-2219
Submittеd March 12, 2002. APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 00AP-1081.
Schools—Mandamus sought to compel State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio to award relator disability retirement benefits based on claim of multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome—Court of appeals’ denial of writ affirmed when relator fails to establish a clеar legal right to disability retirement benefits or a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of STRS to provide them.
{¶1} Appellant, Pamela J. Pipoly, worked as a swim instructor for the Mahoning County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities at the Leonard Kirtz School in Austintown, Ohio. After being exposed tо certain chemicals in the enclosed pool area at which she worked, she took an employer-approved unpaid disability leave of absence from September 13, 1994, to September 1, 1997. Pipoly worked half days on September 2 and 3, 1997, and stopped after she again experienced difficulty with her work environment. Her employer advised her to apply for disability retirement benefits. Pipoly had previously been allowed workers’ compensation benefits for hypersensitivity reaction to chlorine and possible trichloramine, disorders related to chemical bronchitis, tachycardia, allergic rhinitis, maxillary sinusitis, chemical sensitivity, and major depression.
{¶2} In October 1997, Pipoly applied for disability retirement benefits with appellee, State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (“STRS”). Pipoly claimed that she was incapacitated for the performance of her duties as a teacher because of multiple chemiсal sensitivity syndrome, which she acquired while working as a swim instructor. Pipoly also submitted the reports of Stoyan Daskalov, M.D., one of her attending physicians, and Frank J. Agresta, Ph.D., a psychologist who had examined her in 1995 in conjunction with her workers’ compensation claim. Dr. Daskalov diagnosed Pipoly as suffering from allergic rhinitis and chemical sensitivity, but at one point in his report opined that she was not permanently incapacitated for the performance of duty as a teacher, because she could teach in an appropriate environment. Agresta concluded that Pipoly suffered from depression and that this condition was permanently incapacitating.
{¶3} Psychiatrist Ralph G. Walton, M.D., conducted an examination of Pipoly on behalf of STRS in February 1998, and he determined that he could not find any psychiatric reasons for disability.
{¶4} In March 1998, a STRS medical review board, which consisted of three physicians, reviewed the application and evidence and determined that Pipoly was not disabled for purposes of disability retirement benefits. After Pipoly submitted further information, including records relating to her workers’ compensation claim, the medical review board requested additional medical evaluations of her.
{¶5} Richard A. Katzman, M.D., a specialist in pulmonary diseases, examined Pipoly and determined that although her symptoms were consistent with those of persons who claimed to have multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome, he could not
{¶6} Pipoly again submitted additional reports, including several by one of her treating physicians, Donald S. Nelson, M.D. Dr. Nelson diagnosed Pipoly as having multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome and stated that she was completely disabled by this condition.
{¶7} In February 1999, upon request by STRS, Pipoly was examined by Roger A. Friedman, M.D. Dr. Friedman noted that the diagnosis of multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome was questionable because of doubts regarding its existence, and he determined that Pipoly suffered from routine allergies. Dr. Friedman concluded that there was no evidence of any permanent disability.
{¶8} In May 1999, the medical review board recommended that Pipoly’s application for disability retirement benefits be denied.
{¶9} Pipоly then submitted additional records from Dr. Nelson, and STRS ordered further evaluation. Richard L. Green, M.D., examined her in August 1999 and stated that there is a “tremendous controversy in the medical community about labeling this disorder [i.e., multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome] a disease,” but that he believed that multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome is “primarily a рsychiatric disorder and is not founded on any medical pathophysiologic abnormalities.” Dr. Green stated that there were “no objective physical findings and no objective reproducible and scientifically reliable laboratory studies to confirm any disease and the ongoing disease process.”
{¶10} Dr. Friedman received the additional evidence submitted by Pipoly and again concluded that she was not permanently incapacitated for the performance of her duty as a teacher.
{¶11} On September 2, 1999, the disability committee of STRS voted to sustain the recommendation of the medical review board to deny Pipoly’s application for disability retirement benefits. In March 2000, Pipoly submitted two additional evaluations to STRS, including an evaluation by Scott E. Singer, M.D., M.P.H., in which he stated that he was unable to verify with objective evidence any of Pipoly’s concerns regarding her claim of multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome. On April 14, 2000, following an adjudicatory hеaring, the retirement board of STRS unanimously denied Pipoly’s application for disability retirement benefits. The board did not specify its reasons for denying benefits.
{¶13} The General Assembly established STRS to pay retirement allowances and other benefits of Ohio public school teachers.
{¶14} Pipoly asserts that she is entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel STRS to award her disability retirement benefits. The determination by STRS and its retirеment board, STRB, of whether a person is entitled to disability retirement benefits is reviewable by mandamus because
Duty to Explain Decision on Disability Retirement Benefits
{¶15} Pipoly initially asserts that she is entitled to the requested writ of mandamus because STRS did not identify or explain its reasons for denying her application for disability retirement benefits pursuant to State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245. In Noll, we held, “In any order of the Industrial Commission granting or denying benefits to a claimant, the commission must specifically state what evidence has been relied upon, and briefly explain the reasoning for its decision.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at syllabus.
{¶16} Upon consideration, we decline Pipoly’s request to extend Noll to orders of the STRS and STRB granting or denying disability retirement benefits. By the plain language of its syllabus, Noll is limited to Industrial Commission orders involving workers’ compensation claims. “ ‘The syllabus of a Supreme Court opinion states the controlling point or points of law decided in and necessarily arising from the facts of the specific case before the Court fоr adjudication.’ ” (Emphasis sic.) Agee v. Russell (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 540, 546, 751 N.E.2d 1043, quoting former S.Ct.R.Rep.Op. 1(B). Noll did not specify its application to all administrative proceedings and it did not involve any matters other than workers’ compensation.
{¶17} Moreover, Noll relied heavily on State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 481, 484, 6 OBR 531, 453 N.E.2d 721, where we granted a writ of mandamus directing the commission to specify the basis for its decision, “first and foremost, because the duty to so specify the basis fоr its decisions is imposed upon the [Industrial] [C]ommission by statute.” (Emphasis added.)
{¶18} It is axiomatic that in mandamus proceedings, the creation of the legal duty that a relator seeks to enforce is the distinct function of the legislative branch of government, and courts are not authorized to create the legal duty enforceable in mandamus. State ex rel. Woods v. Oak Hill Community Med. Ctr., Inc. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 459, 461, 746 N.E.2d 1108; Davis v. State ex rel. Pecsok (1936), 130 Ohio St. 411, 5 O.O. 20, 200 N.E. 181, paragraph one of the syllabus; State ex rel. Stanley v. Cook (1946), 146 Ohio St. 348, 32 O.O. 419, 66 N.E.2d 207, paragraph eight of the syllabus. Accepting Pipoly’s request to extend Noll and Mitchell to require that STRS and STRB state what evidence they relied upon and specify their reasoning in denying her application for disability retirement benefits would contravene the foregoing precedent because neither
{¶19} The Court of Appeals for Franklin County similarly rejected a request to extend Noll to disability determinations of the School Employees Retirement System by ordering it to explain its decisions:
{¶20} “Thus, while this court has recently extended thе requirements of Noll in the context of disability determinations under the Public Employees Retirement System (‘PERS’) * * * we did so in part because the regulations at issue there specified that the PERS board shall state the basis for its denial. Here, nothing in the statute or regulations suggests that the SERS retirement board or the members of its medical advisory board must issuе a decision [consistent with Noll].” (Emphasis sic.) State ex rel. Copeland v. School Emp. Retirement Sys. (Aug. 5, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-1173, 1999 WL 569279, appeal dismissed based on mootness (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 1507, 728 N.E.2d 1.
{¶21} Furthermore, in Noll, 57 Ohio St.3d at 206, 567 N.E.2d 245, the lead opinion emphasized that our “docket has been inundated with * * * cases” in which the commission failed to comply with Mitchell and its progeny. There has been no comparable flood of cases involving disability determinations by STRS and STRB. And the administrative record in this case, as submitted in the mandamus prоceeding, is not so voluminous that a review of the record is overly burdensome. In fact, our review in a mandamus proceeding challenging an administrative determination on an application for disability retirement benefits is not any more burdensome than reviewing a summary judgment entered by a trial court without a detailed oрinion. See
{¶22} Therefore, while extending Noll to STRS and STRB determinations may be tempting based on policy considerations, see Ochs, 85 Ohio St.3d at 675-676, 710 N.E.2d 1126, we will not impose the Noll requirements in the absence of a statutory duty or a comparable need for these requirements in cases other than workers’ compensation cases. See, e.g., State ex rel. Schwaben v. School Emp. Retirement Sys. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 280, 285, 667 N.E.2d 398 (“However, while it may be tempting to decide this сase on subjective principles of equity and fundamental fairness, this court has a greater obligation to follow the law”). Accordingly, STRS had no clear legal duty cognizable in mandamus to specify what evidence it relied upon and explain the reasoning for its retirement board’s decision denying Pipoly’s application for disability retirement benefits.
Denial of Disability Retirement Benefits
{¶23} Pipoly next asserts that STRS abused its discretion in denying disability retirement benefits. Pipoly contends that overwhelming evidence from her treating physician, Dr. Nelson, as well as other examiners, demonstrated that her
{¶24} As noted previously, pursuant to
{¶25} “Given the apparent controversy in the medical community (as reflected in the record) concerning appellant’s medical condition, it was well within the discretion of STRB to appoint additional examining physicians whose views on multiple chemical sensitivity might differ from the views of appellant’s treating physicians. Much of the concern on the part of STRB as reflected in the record relates to appellant’s desire not to be examined by an appointed examiner, but, rather, for STRB to make its determination on the basis of opinions rendered by her treating physicians.” State ex rel. Peaspаnen v. Ohio State Teachers Retirement Bd. (2001), 143 Ohio App.3d 164, 170, 757 N.E.2d 826.
{¶26} STRS did not abuse its discretion here in refusing to credit the opinions of Dr. Nelson and other examining physicians who determined that Pipoly suffered from multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome and that it was disabling for purposes of STRS disability retirement benefits. Dr. Katzman, Dr. Friedman, and Dr. Singer examined Pipoly and concluded that there was no objective evidence of a disabling physical disorder referred to as multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome. Dr. Hutzler and Dr. Walton examined Pipoly and found no evidence of any disabling mental disorder.
{¶27} The decision of the STRS retirement board to deny Pipoly’s application for disability retirement benefits was neither unreasonable, arbitrary, nor unconscionable; instead, it was based on substantial and significant medical
{¶28} Based on the foregoing, Pipoly has not established a clеar legal right to disability retirement benefits or a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of STRS to provide them. Accordingly, we affirm the well-reasoned judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., concur in judgment only.
Brown & Margolius, L.P.A., James Mitchell Brown and Rachel C. Wilson, for appellant.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Christopher S. Cook, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.