Case Title: State ex rel. Midmark Corp. v. Indus. Comm.

Citation: 1997-Ohio-247

Docket Number: 19950020

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-03-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State ex rel. Midmark Corporation, Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. Industrial 
Commission of Ohio; Sergent, Appellant and Cross-Appellee. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Midmark Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1997), _____ Ohio St.3d ____.] 
Workers’ compensation -- Application for permanent total disability 
compensation -- Surveillance videotape evidence submitted by employer 
at hearing -- Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in not 
requiring commission specialist to view the videotape and in relying on 
the commission specialist’s report in awarding compensation. 
 
(No. 95-20 -- Submitted January 7, 1997 -- Decided March 12, 1997.) 
 
Appeal and Cross-Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 
93APD10-1457. 
 
Claimant-appellant and cross-appellee, Billy Sergent, was injured in 1973 and 
1984 while employed at Peerless Machinery Corporation and Midmark Corporation, 
appellee and cross-appellant, respectively.  His workers’ compensation claims were 
allowed for “probable continuous nerve injury, medial aspect of right thigh, twisted 
back”; and “traumatic injury to low back and coccyx; herniated disc at L5-S1 level and 
aggravation of pre-existing spondylolisthesis of L2-L3.”  Except for a short period in 
1986, claimant did not work after his last injury in 1984.  In 1988, examining physician 
Dr. Steven S. Wunder reported: 
 
2
 
“He claimed an inability to ambulate.  When he went from sit to stand, he used 
his canes.  He stated that I had to hold him to walk and when I told him that I did not 
think this was necessary, he promptly acted as if he was going to fall and sat back down 
in the chair ever so carefully.  Once we got him away from the chair, he was able [to] 
walk with his canes without my assistance.  His gait was bizarre and inconsistent with 
most antalgic gait patterns.  Heel and toe walking really could not be assessed because 
of excessive movements.  He insisted on keeping his brace on throughout the exam.  In 
fact, he told me that he has had this brace for one year but it had a perfectly new 
appearance and certainly was not well worn.  When I commented on this, he indicated 
that he stayed in bed most of the day.  
 
“The patient claimed to have pain from the upper dorsal to sacral regions 
bilaterally.  The areas of tenderness were not always reproducible.  With his attention 
diverted, pain did not always seem to be present.  However, with formal testing he 
complained of excruciating pain to even gentle palpation.   
 
“* * * 
 
“Mr. Sergent’s history and physical examination reveals [sic.] evidence of L2-3 
spondylolisthesis, osteoarthritis, mechanical back pain and conversion features.  The 
patient was felt to have an unstable spine as early as 1977.  His condition was 
temporarily rendered symptomatic by the 1984 injury but was not substantially 
 
3
aggravated by this.  By this I mean that there was [sic.] no neurologic deficit in relation 
to motor, sensory and reflex exam and no bowel or bladder change.  He has well 
documented long standing back problems dating from 1973 and indeed reported to Dr. 
Tillotson in 1977 that he had back pain 24 hours per day.  Not only does his 
examination not demonstrate neurologic impairment, his EMG also has been normal.  
He does have a psychiatric history dating back to at least 1976 with Dr. Kostoff noting 
conversion symptoms at that time.  He has demonstrated conversion and dependency 
needs even requesting an electric wheelchair despite normal neurologic exam.  His 
condition probably is permanent.” 
 
A June 8, 1989 exam by Dr. John W. Cunningham documented similar 
inconsistency between claimant’s presentation when he knew he was being observed 
and when he did not.  Dr. Cunningham ultimately assessed a fifty-percent permanent 
partial impairment. 
 
Suspicious of claimant’s abilities, Midmark Corporation hired a private 
investigation firm to monitor claimant’s activities.  The investigators watched 
claimant’s home on four days in August 1989.  On August 14, 1989, no activity was 
recorded.  On the next two days, the investigators reported: 
 
4
 
“During the course of our surveillance, we observed subject involved in several 
activities, moving about at will. He was observed driving, climbing stairs, and doing 
considerable walking, with the use of a single cane. 
 
“For the majority of the two days of surveillance, subject’s primary activity was 
working on the window frames at the side of his residence.  During this activity, subject 
was observed walking short distances without the use of the cane, climbing onto a step 
ladder and pulling himself up on a scaffold and then climbing down.  He was also 
observed using hand tools, such as a scraper, drill, and hammer, without apparent 
difficulty.” 
 
On August 29, 1989, the surveillance team made the following entries: 
 
“11:35 a.m.  We observe the subject exiting the Ohio Building, walking at a slow 
pace, using a cane in his right hand. * * * Subject’s wife is assisting him as he walks to 
the vehicle.  She helps him into the passenger side of the car, and they leave the area. 
 
“11:44 a.m.  They arrive at subject’s residence.  Subject exits the passenger side 
of the vehicle without assistance and walks to the residence with the cane in his right 
hand.  NOTE: It does not appear that subject is using the cane for support, and he 
appears to walk at a faster pace. * * * 
 
5
 
“11:54 a.m.  Subject and wife exit the residence.  * * *  Subject enters the 
passenger side of the blue Oldsmobile, while his wife gets into the driver’s side.  They 
then leave the area * * *. 
 
“* * * 
 
“12:41 p.m.  Subject’s vehicle takes a Troy exit * * * to the office of Dr. Nims 
M.D., Inc. * * *  We note Dr. Nims is a psychiatrist. 
 
“12:43 p.m.  Subject’s wife assists him in exiting the vehicle.  We note that at 
this time, subject is using two canes.  Subject and wife walk to the front door of the 
office, subject’s wife still assisting him.  They stand there for a moment, then she helps 
him back to the car.  Subject has one arm around his wife’s shoulders and a cane in his 
right hand. She helps him back into the car, and they remain seated in the vehicle in the 
parking lot.   
 
“* * * 
 
“1:46 p.m.  We observe subject leave the Doctor’s office and enter his vehicle, 
his wife helping him.  He uses two canes.  Subject leans against the car while his wife 
opens the door to the passenger side.  He then backs into the seat and she assists him.  
She closes the door and walks around and enters the driver’s side of the vehicle.  * * *  
 
“* * * 
 
6
 
“2:17 p.m.  The vehicle stops at * * *.  Subject and wife exit the vehicle.  We 
note that subject’s wife does not assist him this time, and he is using only one cane.  He 
is walking with less difficulty then [sic.] when observed at Dr. Nims’ office.  * * *” 
 
Midmark showed the surveillance videotape to Dr. Cunningham.  Dr. 
Cunningham stated in a second report: 
 
“In reference to the videotape of his surveillance from 08-15-89 until 08-29-89, 
this individual was found to be repetitively able to climb onto and off of a scaffold 
which was approximately at the height of his ears from the ground.  It was also noted 
on the videotape that he was able to walk with and without the assistance of a cane on 
multiple occasions.  He was frequently carrying a cane, but he did not always use a cane 
for ambulatory support.  He was seen dragging a stepladder on one occasion.  This 
videotape surveillance conclusively and rather graphically supports my previous 
opinion that this individual’s attempted exhibition of ability to move about, and his 
exhibited functional capacity when he was aware of being observed, was much less 
than was truly present when he was not aware of being observed.” 
 
Dr. Cunningham, however, still assigned a fifty-percent permanent partial 
impairment to claimant’s allowed conditions. 
 
Claimant, in the meantime, applied for permanent total disability compensation.  
Among the assertions made in his application were: 
 
7
 
“[I have] [c]onstant pain that shoots into my hips, groin area, down [my] legs into 
my feet & toes.  Pain shoots into my upper back & my head causing severe headaches.  
I lose the use of both legs at times & have fallen.  I have to use 2 canes & a Taylor back 
brace.  My legs & feet swell & hurt severely.  I cannot lift.  I have almost no endurance 
or cooridnation [sic] left.  My wife has to help me in all my daily activities such as 
dressing, bathing[,] in & out of bed, my brace on & off & at times has cleaned me when 
I use the stool, I have back pain when I cough or sneeze.  My back & legs hurt when I 
ride for a period of time.  I can not bend, [and have] limited walking.  I have trouble 
sleeping, I cannot stand or sit for long periods of time, I cannot squat * * *. 
 
“I cannot do the following since my 1984 injury that I did before[:] I no longer 
swim, ride motorcycle, hunt, trim trees & yard work, take walks with my grand 
children, work out with weights, exercise, home repairs, repair & paint cars. * * * I 
have no social or social activities or others.  [I] can no longer participate in * * * 
moving activities.”  (Emphasis added.) 
 
Claimant’s application prompted an exam by commission specialist Dr. Paul F. 
Gatens, Jr. on March 23, 1990.  In his reference to claimant’s medical history, Dr. 
Gatens reported: 
 
“In the file there is an x-ray of the low back dated 1976 showing some 
osteoarthritis at the level of L3.  There is some osteoarthritis at the level of L2.  It is 
 
8
noticed that the osteoarthritis of L2 is not present on previous films in 1973.  X-rays of 
the low back in 1984 showed a normal coccyx.  It also described malalignment of the 
level of L2 and L3 with osteoarthritis.  It was felt on these films that the malalignment 
did compromise the vertebral canal.  This was suggestive of a first degree 
spondylolisthesis.  A CAT scan of the lumbosacral spine in February of 1986 showed a 
herniated disc at L5, S1 compromising the left neural foramen.  The claimant had a 
letter in which a doctor had recommended an L2-3 decompression and fusion with a 
probable Zilke pedicular instrumentation.  In the file, it appeared that the Industrial 
Commission had approved surgery; however, the claimant says the company he worked 
for is self-insured and they had him see another physician who did not recommend the 
surgery.  Consequently, the claimant has never [had] any surgery for this problem, and 
none is planned at the current time.  The claimant indicates that he continues to have 
problems with his low back and pain in both legs, the left worse than the right.  He says 
the legs can give out on  him and he can fall to the ground.  He uses bilateral canes 
when he walks short distances and uses a wheelchair for any longer distances.  He 
indicates his wife has to help him get his clothes on and off and has to help him get in 
and out of bed. * * * 
 
“The claimant was wheeled to and from the examination room in a wheelchair by 
his wife.  He was carrying two straight canes.  The claimant had to be dressed and 
 
9
undressed by his wife.  His wife helped him get on and off the examination table.  The 
claimant could not toe or heel walk.  He could not do a partial squat and return.  
Palpation of the low back showed tenderness on the entire lumbosacral area.  In terms 
of low back range of motion, he had less than 10 degrees in any direction.  Reflexes in 
the lower extremities were 2 to 3+ at the knees and 1 to 2+ at the ankles.  Manual 
muscle testing was invalid in that he showed ‘breakaway’ weakness of every muscle 
examined in both lower extremities.  Sensation to light touch was described as 
decreased in a nonphysiologic pattern involving the entire right leg, groin to foot, 
compared to the left * * * . 
 
“* * *  During today’s physical exam, it was very difficult to evaluate the 
physical findings since the subjective complaints seemed to outweigh the objective 
findings.  There, however, has been objective evidence of an L5-S1 herniated disc on 
the left in 1986.  Based on my examination and review of the file, it would be my 
opinion that the claimant’s allowed industrial claims involving his low back do prevent 
him from returning to his former position of employment.  In my opinion, this inability 
to return to his former position of employment is permanent.  I do not, however, feel 
that he has a permanent and total impairment.  In my opinion, the claimant could 
perform work in the sedentary strength physical capacities provided he could be 
provided with a handicapped parking space within reasonable proximity to his work 
 
10
site.  If the claimant is indeed not going to have any surgery, then it would be my 
opinion that he has reached maximum medical benefit for his allowed industrial claims.  
Based on my examination and review of the file, it would be my opinion that the 
claimant has a permanent and partial impairment related to all of his allowed industrial 
claims involving his low back of 60% of the body as a whole.  The other question I am 
asked is in terms of rehabilitation potential.  At this point in time, it would be my 
opinion that the claimant would not really benefit from rehabilitation services, and I 
would not recommend them.  The only program that might be of any possible benefit to 
him would be a vocational evaluation for jobs in the sedentary strength physical 
capacities, but at this point in time I would not be sure the claimant would either be 
interested in such a program or benefit significantly from it.”  
 
In November 1990, surveillance of claimant again resumed.  No activity was 
observed on November 6.  The next day, the following entries of note were made: 
 
“9:40 a.m.  We drive by the residence and positively identify subject * * *.   
Subject is raking leaves * * *.  He is also observed carrying a large dark plastic bag full 
of leaves over his right shoulder.  He walks to the curb and dumps the leaves in a pile 
next to the roadway.  He is not using a cane or walker.   
 
“10:35 a.m.  Subject continues raking leaves and working in the yard, carrying 
bags of leaves to the street.   
 
11
 
“* * * 
 
“11:20 a.m.  Subject is still in the yard walking around, raking leaves and 
carrying large plastic bags of leaves and debris to the front of the residence near the 
roadway and dumping them into a pile.  At no time has he used a cane or walker during 
this activity.  Subject walks at a slow pace.  We are able to document some of this 
activity on video tape.  The female individual,  believed to be his wife, is also raking 
leaves and pushing a power mower with a bag attachment. 
 
“1:35 p.m.  We observe the subject next to the roadway, dumping leaves. 
 
“2:52 p.m.  Subject is observed in front of the residence with a garden hose, 
sprinkling the pile of leaves next to the roadway. 
 
“3:15 p.m.  Subject is observed pushing the mower in the rear yard, next to the 
garage.   
 
“3:20 p.m.  Subject continues to push the mower in the rear yard. * * *” 
 
Two days later, investigators reported: 
 
“11:50 a.m.  Subject and wife are seen in the front yard.  * * * He and his wife 
are again raking leaves.  Subject uses both hands to rake the leaves, and no cane is 
visible.  He appears to have no difficulty in walking.   
 
“12:20 p.m.  Subject and his wife are still in the yard raking and doing other 
work * * *. 
 
12
 
“12:23 p.m.  Subject walks from the garage, using what appears to be a cane in 
his right hand. 
 
“12:25 p.m.  Subject is now seen carrying a 6-7 ft. stepladder, using his right arm 
and hand.   His wife walks beside him.  He places the ladder next to the large tree in 
front of the residence, climbs to the top of the ladder without any assistance, and trims 
some top branches from the tree, with his wife holding the ladder to steady it.  He then 
climbs back down, folds up the ladder and carries it back around the residence with no 
help.  He does not have a cane during this activity. * * *” 
 
On August 15, 1991, the first of three permanent total disability hearings took 
place.  On this date, the hearing was quickly adjourned and reset, following allegations 
by claimant’s counsel that the surveillance tapes had been prejudicially edited.  At no 
point during this hearing did Midmark’s counsel ask that commission specialist Gatens 
be required to view the tape.  Midmark’s counsel also made no such request at the next 
hearing on October 16, 1991.  During that session, the video was shown and 
commentary provided by one of the investigators.  Claimant also testified in response to 
the tapes: 
 
“Mr. Larrimer [claimant’s counsel]:  Mr. Sergent, you have had a chance to 
review that film.  Was that you in the film? 
 
“Mr. Sergent:  Yes, it is. 
 
13
 
“Mr. Larrimer:  Can you describe to the members of the Commission what was 
the activity and why you were doing it? 
 
“Mr. Sergent:  We had some window air conditioners in our windows several 
years earlier -- 
 
“Mr. Larrimer:  I don’t need a real detailed history of the home.  What was the 
specific activity on this particular day?  Why were you doing it? 
 
“Mr. Sergent:  Having the end of the house repaired because of water damage.  
The contractor was going to put aluminum over the windows.  He had bent some 
aluminum like this and he wanted me to measure them on the window.  There were five 
windows.  That is what I was doing, measuring the aluminum, cutting it to length. 
 
“Mr. Larrimer:  Was that the only activity you did in regard to the windows? 
 
“Mr. Sergent:  I punched some putty off so the thing could fit flat. 
 
“Mr. Larrimer:  You were seen sitting on a scaffold.  Did you construct the 
scaffold? 
 
“Mr. Sergent:  No.   
 
“Mr. Larrimer:  Who did? 
 
“Mr. Sergent: Contractor.  This work, it was six, seven hours of stopping, laying 
down, and I would take medication.  As far as walking and canes, sometimes I use one, 
sometimes I can walk without using any.  Sometimes I have to have a wheelchair.  It 
 
14
depends on my condition, how the medication is timed.  I think it is a Class II 
substance. 
 
“Mr. Larrimer:  In terms of raking the leaves, how many bags do you think you 
carried during the course of two days?   
 
“Mr. Sergent:  It was several bags but they were light, two, three pounds maybe.  
I didn’t run with them no hundred yard dash. 
 
“Mr. Larrimer:  The investigator suggested that you brought one out every four 
minutes.  Is that accurate?  
 
“Mr. Sergent:  No.   
 
“Mr. Larrimer:  One every four minutes if you work six hours, that would be 90 
bags.  Does your yard contain 90 bags of leaves? 
 
“Mr. Sergent:  No.  He took out in the film where the wife had a vacuum.  It was 
not a lawn mower.   It was a vacuum.” 
 
On January 3, 1992, the commission found claimant to be permanently and 
totally disabled.  Consequently, Midmark filed a mandamus action in the Court of 
Appeals for Franklin County.  Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the court, on June 26, 
1992, dismissed Midmark’s mandamus complaint and the commission ordered the 
matter to be rescheduled for a third hearing.  At this hearing on September 21, 1992, 
 
15
Midmark’s counsel, for the first time, argued that Dr. Gatens should be required to 
issue an amended report based upon a viewing of the videotape.   
 
The commission ultimately refused Midmark’s request, and on October 20, 1992 
again found claimant to be permanently and totally disabled.  The commission wrote: 
 
“* * * This order is based particularly upon the report of Drs. [sic] Gatens, 
evidence in the file and/or evidence adduced at the hearing. 
 
“It is specifically noted that claimant is 56 years of age, has a 7th grade education 
and has a work history of unskilled labor with no special training or vocational skills 
that would be transferrable to sedentary occupations.  Dr. Gatens opined that Mr. 
Sergent would not really benefit from rehabilitation services and that he would not 
recommend them.  The members of the Commission have viewed the video tape 
evidence submitted by the employer at the hearing, and Mr. Mayfield has viewed the 
full length version of the video tape evidence, following the hearing.  The Commission 
is of the opinion that the video tape does not support a conclusion that the claimant 
herein is capable of sustained remunerative employment.  The Commission is, 
therefore, of the opinion that these disability factors, when combined with the relatively 
high rate of medical impairment found by Dr. Gatens (60%), effectively preclude any 
sustained remunerative employment, and that the claimant herein is, therefore, 
permanently and totally disabled.” 
 
16
 
Midmark filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin 
County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in awarding permanent total 
disability compensation.  The appellate court, fearing that Dr. Gatens may have been 
mislead by claimant’s exaggerated presentation, vacated the commission’s order.  It 
directed the commission to “order a new examination of Mr. Sergent by a commission 
orthopedic specialist, preferably Dr. Gatens.  The commission orthopedic specialist 
should have the videotape of Mr. Sergent’s actual physical activities available for 
review in conjunction with the examination.  Following receipt of a report in regard to 
the new examination and any other medical evidence the commission deems 
appropriate, the commission should then determine whether Mr. Sergent is entitled to 
an award of permanent total disability compensation and enter an appropriate order in 
regard to that determination.”  
 
The cause is now before this court upon appeal and cross-appeal as of right. 
 
Pickrel, Schaeffer & Ebeling Co., L.P.A., David C. Korte and Mary L. Biagioli, 
for appellee and cross-appellant. 
 
Larrimer & Larrimer and David H. Swanson, for appellant and cross-appellee. 
 
Per Curiam.  Precipitating this dispute are the Gatens and surveillance reports.  
From this evidence, two issues arise: (1) Was the commission compelled to have Dr. 
Gatens view the videotape and prepare an amended report? and (2) Did the commission 
 
17
err in subsequently relying on the Gatens report?  Midmark argues that the surveillance 
showed claimant capable of a wider variety of activity than he alleged in his 
application.  In Midmark’s view, the medical opinion rendered by Dr. Gatens without 
the benefit of videotape viewing was inherently unreliable, because the report was so 
tainted as to demand some sort of remedial action, either by amendment or 
disqualification.  In this case, we agree with the commission’s decision. 
 
Claimant did exaggerate his incapacity to examining physicians.  At least two 
examiners felt that claimant was not completely forthright in his medical presentation.  
Surveillance information, moreover, contradicted many of the assertions made in 
claimant’s permanent total disability application.  This inconsistency, however, means 
little unless it contradicts claimant’s contention that he cannot work or Gatens’s 
conclusion that he is limited to sedentary work.  The surveillance material does neither. 
 
First, the material does not establish a medical capacity for work greater than 
sedentary.  It simply shows claimant walking unassisted or doing fairly unstrenuous 
domestic chores.  Moreover, the objective, documented presence of spondylolisthesis 
and herniated disc, as discussed by Dr. Gatens, belies an assertion that his opinion was 
based solely on claimant’s exaggerated subjective complaints.  Interestingly, Dr. 
Cunningham, who evaluated claimant on Midmark’s behalf, saw the videotape and still 
 
18
assessed a fifty-percent permanent partial impairment --- only ten percentage points 
removed from Dr. Gatens’s sixty-percent figure.   
 
Second, these documented activities, even if deemed inconsistent and work-
amenable, do not establish that claimant can do sustained remunerative employment.  
Midmark’s investigation spanned approximately fifteen months, yet it could show only 
five days in which claimant was performing allegedly questionable activities.  There is 
no evidence of claimant’s performing even any medium-exertion labor, nor is there any 
evidence of claimant’s doing the recorded activity on anything other than rare 
occasions.  The surveillance package, therefore, proved very little.  As such, the 
commission did not abuse its discretion in accepting the Gatens report as valid. 
 
Midmark’s assertion of commission error is further undermined by Midmark’s 
own inaction.  Midmark, pursuant to Ohio Adm. Code 4121-3-09(B)(5), could have 
moved to depose Dr. Gatens in an effort to clarify his perceptions.  It did not do so.  
Midmark’s response that its investigation was not finished when Gatens issued his 
report ignores that the first period of surveillance was complete at that time.  Thus, 
evidence of alleged medically inconsistent activity already existed and could have 
prompted a timely request.  Surveillance information from the first period alone was 
enough to generate a video review by Dr. Cunningham.  Midmark could have done the 
same with Gatens. 
 
19
 
We thus find that the commission did not abuse its discretion in not requiring that 
Dr. Gatens view the videotape and in relying on his report.  The report is “some 
evidence” supporting the commission’s order.  
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is hereby reversed, and the order of the 
commission is reinstated. 
Judgment reversed. 
and order reinstated. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.