Case Title: State ex rel. Gregg v. Indus. Comm.

Citation: 2000-Ohio-366

Docket Number: 19981553

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Gregg v. Indus. Comm., 88 Ohio St.3d 405, 2000-Ohio-366.] 
 
 
 
 
1 
THE STATE EX REL. GREGG, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, 
APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Gregg v. Indus. Comm. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 405.] 
Workers’ compensation — Industrial Commission’s denial of temporary total 
disability compensation not an abuse of discretion, when. 
(No. 98-1553 — Submitted February 22, 2000 — Decided May 1, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 97APD07-928. 
 
Appellant-claimant Katie Lambert Gregg was injured in 1980, while 
working for Pentasote, Inc.  Her workers’ compensation claim was allowed for 
“right arm/elbow sprain; low back sprain; degenerative disc disease low back; 
aggravation of pre-existing adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features.”  
On February 5, 1993, claimant moved appellee, Industrial Commission of Ohio, 
for temporary total disability compensation (“TTC”) commencing on March 20, 
1991.  In support, claimant submitted reports from Drs. D.D. Kackley and Nicholas 
Peponis.  The latter report consisted of an MRI evaluation, which confirmed the 
presence of the degenerative disc disease that was allowed earlier.  Dr. Kackley’s 
exam of claimant’s physical impairment revealed a “significant loss of lumbar 
reserve and function.”  He additionally reported: 
 
“[Claimant’s] symptoms are progressing and her attending physicians have 
suggested the possibility of surgery to the low back.  Before that was considered I 
would think that an effort at a significant weight loss would be some definite help.  
She certainly does have a significant problem and along with her depression at the 
present time I do not think she is capable of carrying out any significant work 
activity.  She is in need of a weight loss program as well as a re-evaluation of the 
low back and the possibility of some surgical management of the low back 
problem.  If such was possible, she would be continued on temporary total 
 
 
2
impairment for a time and given a chance to loose [sic] weight and undergo a 
diagnostic workup. 
 
“If the above is not carried out, I feel that she does represent a relatively 
high loss of lumbar reserve and function withs [sic] some instability * * *.  I 
cannot help but feel that a total workup and the possibility of some surgical 
management after a weight reduction program has been accomplished, would 
allow her to resume significant activity. 
 
“Although this has been going on for the last 12 years, I feel that she would 
benefit by a further effort at diagnosis and treatment. 
 
“In my opinion this individual is in need of a diagnostic workup as well as 
some psychiatric help.  If such can be carried out she would be continued on 
temporary total impairment during that time and the possibility of surgical 
management re-evaluated.” 
 
Also in the claimant’s file were medical reports from Drs. R.L. Ayers, 
Thomas E. Baker, and Lee Howard.  Attending physician Ayers certified claimant 
as permanently and totally disabled in late 1990.  Treatment, at that time, consisted 
of medical and physical therapy, the latter ultimately proving to be of little value 
according to Dr. Ayers.  Dr. Ayers also noted claimant’s depression, but did not 
request authorization for psychiatric consultation at that time. 
 
Dr. Baker opined on March 20, 1991 that claimant should “[c]ontinu[e] with 
the medication that she is presently on.  Consideration could be given to repeating 
her MRI, obtaining an EMG of the lumbar spine and both legs.  She apparently is 
seeing a psychologist but she could be seen and treated at the Bureau of 
Rehabilitation for pain and stress management.  A pool exercise program might be 
beneficial to alleviate some of her symptoms.  I would recommend a weight loss 
exercise program, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication and perhaps a TENS 
 
 
3
unit.  If her symptoms continue or increase, she may eventually need a lumbar 
decompression and fusion.” 
 
Dr. Howard evaluated claimant’s allowed psychological/psychiatric 
condition.  He felt that claimant’s industrially related psychopathology did not 
prevent a return to her former position of employment.  He opined that minimum 
treatment was required, and advised against referral to the commission’s 
rehabilitation division, “as the claimant does not report any significant motivation 
for change at this time.” 
 
In early February 1993, Dr. Ayers completed a C84 physician’s report 
supplemental, which certified claimant as still temporarily and totally disabled.  
Clinical findings in support involved claimant’s back exclusively and were 
repeated in a July 1993 C84 report.  Dr. Ayers also requested authorization for 
continued unspecified treatment, a psychiatric consult with Dr. Ronald C. 
Moomaw, and authorization for a weight-loss program. 
 
A commission district hearing officer denied TTC.  That order was 
eventually vacated by the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, which issued a 
limited writ of mandamus because the commission’s order had failed to adequately 
explain its reasoning and the evidence on which it relied. 
 
The commission vacated the order and referred claimant’s file to Dr. James 
M. Coulter, the commission’s chief medical advisor, for review.  Dr. Coulter 
reported: 
 
“I have reviewed the medical reports of Drs. Ayers, Baker, Kackley, and 
Howard and I have accepted the findings regarding the claimant’s allowed 
conditions of right elbow, lower back, degenerative disc disease low back; 
aggravation of pre-existing adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features. 
 
“Dr. Baker reported in his March 20, 1991 examination that further 
evaluation should be considered and that, ‘she [claimant] may eventually need a 
 
 
4
lumbar decompression and fusion.’  Examining for the Industrial Commission on 
December 1, 1992, Dr. Kackley stated, ‘However, from the medical standpoint I 
cannot help but feel that a total workup and the possibility of some surgical 
management after a weight reduction program, would allow her to resume 
significant activity.  I feel she would benefit by a further effort at diagnosis and 
treatment.’  If this treatment were being pursued by the claimant, the condition 
might be considered temporary.  However, the claimant has not elected to pursue 
these diagnostic and treatment procedures in the 16 years that have passed since 
the injury.  * * *  Based on the claimant[’]s actual course of treatment which 
apparently does not involve a choice to elect surgery, its seems reasonable to 
conclude that these conditions have in fact reached maximum medical 
improvement after 16 years and are permanent as of March 20, 1991.” 
 
A staff hearing officer again denied TTC, writing: 
 
“The assertion that claimant’s disability is still temporary 16 years after the 
injury is based upon mere possibility that surgery may be considered.  However, 
the Staff Hearing Officer finds that after 16 years[,] claimant has not elected 
surgery. 
 
“Based upon the opinion of Dr. James Coulter dated May 8, 1996 and the 
fact that the claimant’s actual course of treatment has not involved a choice to elect 
surgery, it is found that claimant’s allowed conditions have in fact reached 
maximum medical improvement and are permanent as of March 20, 1991.” 
 
Claimant filed another complaint in mandamus, again alleging that the 
commission abused its discretion in denying TTC.  The court of appeals refused 
the writ, after finding that Dr. Coulter’s report was “some evidence” supporting 
TTC denial. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
 
5
 
Phillip J. Fulton & Associates and William A. Thorman III, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Jon D. Grandon, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Debate centers on Dr. Coulter’s report.  That report arose from 
Dr. Coulter’s review of the medical evidence in file, not from personal 
examination of the claimant, and has prompted three challenges.  Upon review, we 
find claimant’s arguments to be unpersuasive. 
 
Claimant initially asserts that Dr. Coulter failed to consider her allowed 
psychological/psychiatric condition, disqualifying his report from consideration. 
Dr. Coulter’s report, however, lists the psychiatric ailment among the enumerated 
allowed conditions.  Equally important, Dr. Coulter’s review of Dr. Howard’s 
psychological report further demonstrates Coulter’s awareness of the condition. 
 
Claimant also challenges Dr. Coulter’s failure to consider the reports of Drs. 
Moomaw, Earl Greer, Steven E. Zartman, and Peponis.  While indeed true, the 
commission’s failure to consider these reports, in this instance, is not fatal.  
Peponis’s report is simply an MRI reading that confirms the existence of 
claimant’s allowed degenerative disc condition.  It does not comment on the 
potential improvement in that condition or its effect on claimant’s ability to work.  
As to the remaining three reports, none of them advances claimant’s cause, which 
undermines claimant’s assertion of harm.  Of the three doctors, only Greer 
commented on claimant’s ability to return to her former position of employment, 
and Greer found that claimant’s psychological condition was not work-prohibitive.  
This does not advance claimant’s TTC request, nor do the reports of Moomaw or 
Zartman, which avoid the question entirely.  We find, therefore, that these 
omissions do not affect the probative quality of Dr. Coulter’s report. 
 
 
6
 
Claimant argues last that it was impermissible for Dr. Coulter to conclude 
that based on claimant’s past treatment, there was no potential for future 
improvement.  This contention fails as well.  Dr. Coulter concedes that if claimant 
were to undergo surgery, then improvement might occur.  However, based on the 
fact that claimant, by that time, had had sixteen years to seek surgery but did not 
do so, Dr. Coulter excluded it as a realistic possibility and assessed MMI.  Thus, 
the commission’s reliance on Dr. Coulter’s report was not an abuse of discretion. 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.