Login | April 25, 2024
Supreme Court of Ohio: Ambiguous medical report insufficient in deciding disability claims
KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: July 29, 2019
The Ohio Supreme Court recently held that an ambiguous medical report is insufficient evidence for the Industrial Commission of Ohio to either grant or deny disability compensation to an injured worker.
The decision upheld a Franklin County appeals court holding that found the Industrial Commission abused its discretion by relying on a report by a licensed psychologist to deny the request of injured Geauga County maintenance worker Joshua Pilarczyk for permanent- total-disability compensation on the basis that the report was open to interpretation.
The 10th District Court of Appeals ruled the report was not proper evidence to support the commission's determination and issued a limited writ of mandamus ordering the commission to vacate its order, adjudicate Pilarczyk's request for compensation in conformity with the court's decision and enter a new order.
According to case summary, Pilarczyk sustained a back injury in 2002. His workers' compensation claims were allowed for various spinal and psychological conditions and he received temporary-total-disability compensation until June 15, 2015.
He applied permanent-total disability compensation the next month.
Also that year, Pilarczyk underwent a series of physical and psychological examinations - his orthopedic physician, stating that his injuries prevented him from engaging in "any gainful employment," while his psychologist determined the man "may be able to manage a vocational rehabilitation program at this time" and that he had reached maximum medical improvement.
The commission referred the injured worker to musculoskeletal specialist Dr. Bina Mehta for a physical assessment and to Dr. Joseph P. Pecorelli for a psychological assessment. Mehta found that Pilarczyk "could perform work within the sedentary work capacity category" though he would require breaks and an ambulatory assistive device. Pecorelli reasoned, however, that Pilarczyk's "ongoing symptoms of emotional distress would prove to be barriers for any return to gainful employment" and that Pilarczyk was incapable of work.
At the conclusion of a pair of commissioner staff hearings, the commission denied Pilarczyk's application for compensation based on the reports of Mehta and Dr. Kenneth Gruenfeld, the man's psychologist.
The order stated "Dr. Gruenfeld opines injured worker is capable of work in a low stress job," prompting Pilarczyk to seek reconsideration twice.
Justices held that the commission may rely on Gruenfeld's report only if he clarifies his medical opinion regarding the injured worker's ability to engage in sustained remunerative employment.
"In a direct appeal such as this, the granting of a request for oral argument is subject to this court's discretion," the court wrote per curiam. "We typically do not grant a request for oral argument unless the case involves a matter of great public importance, complex issues of law or fact, a substantial constitutional issue or a conflict among courts of appeals.
"Pilarczyk's motion for oral argument does not convincingly demonstrate that any of the above factors are present. We therefore deny the motion."
The case is cited as State ex rel. Pilarczyk v. Geauga Cty., Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-2880.
Copyright © 2019 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved