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

Citation: 2007-Ohio-4558

Docket Number: 20061415

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2007-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Starr v. Indus. Comm., 114 Ohio St.3d 449, 2007-Ohio-4558.] 
THE STATE EX REL. STARR, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL  
COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Starr v. Indus. Comm., 
 114 Ohio St.3d 449, 2007-Ohio-4558.] 
Workers’ compensation — Psychologist’s report is “some evidence” for denial of 
temporary total disability compensation — Judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2006-1415 — Submitted May 22, 2007 — Decided September 19, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 05AP-670. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This evidentiary challenge involves Teri M. Starr’s request for 
temporary total disability compensation.  On January 5, 2001, Starr was a 27-
year-old elementary physical education teacher for Beavercreek City Schools.  On 
that date, she was teaching a child how to dribble a basketball, and she tripped 
over the child’s foot.  Starr stumbled into a wall, hit her head and has never 
worked since. 
{¶ 2} A workers’ compensation claim was originally allowed for “sprain 
of neck; sprain thoracic region; sprain acromioclavicular, right; contusion scalp 
(head); contusion face.”  On January 14, 2002, the claim was additionally allowed 
for “post concussion syndrome.”  Effective July 19, 2002, temporary total 
disability compensation was terminated after maximum medical improvement 
was assessed. 
{¶ 3} At approximately the same time, Starr moved for the additional 
allowance of posttraumatic stress disorder and anxiety disorder with panic attacks, 
based on reports from psychologist Doris Cohen, Ph.D., Michael B. Leach, Ph.D.,  
and Magdi S. Rizk, M.D., opined that allowance of posttraumatic stress disorder 
was inappropriate because Starr’s trip and fall was unlike any of the extreme 
traumatic stressors enumerated by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
Mental Disorders for that diagnosis.  Consequently, that condition was 
specifically disallowed.  “Anxiety disorder with panic attacks,” however, was 
made part of the claim. 
{¶ 4} On July 14, 2004, Starr moved for temporary total disability 
compensation backdated to July 19, 2002, based on her allowed psychiatric 
condition.  At some point thereafter, Dr. Cohen’s treatment notes were submitted 
to appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio.  Those notes, among other documents, 
were reviewed by Dr. David J. Greenwald, a psychologist, on January 30, 2005, 
as part of a medical-file review.  He produced a lengthy and detailed report that 
was highly critical of Dr. Cohen’s treatment.  Dr. Greenwald suspected that many 
of Starr’s psychiatric problems — if legitimate — stemmed from a pre-existing 
personality disorder unrelated to her industrial injury.  Many of those same 
complaints, he observed, were not corroborated by neuropsychological testing.  
He was also troubled by Dr. Cohen’s constant reinforcement of “claimant’s 
adoption of the sick role.” 
{¶ 5} Dr. Greenwald had a “number of issues” with Dr. Cohen’s course 
of treatment: 
{¶ 6} “Based upon my review of her office notes, it was evident that 
there was no treatment plan or specific treatment goals, and that the vast majority 
of the focus was on issues that are not related to the allowed psychological 
condition of this claim.  Specifically, there was a great deal of focus on the 
claimant’s reported headaches, on family or relationship issues, on reported 
depression (which was not supported by the testing of the neuropsychologist), and 
on treatment for reported cognitive impairment, but very little focus on the 
allowed condition of anxiety with panic attacks.  I also found no evidence of 
symptomatology that would meet criteria for a panic attack, and no treatment for 
panic attacks in the submitted records of Dr. Cohen. * * *  There was also no 
evidence of a systematic approach geared to addressing anxiety that was directly 
January Term, 2007 
3 
related to the work injury.  I also found no clear explanation regarding the 
connection between the work injury and the anxiety in these treatment records. * 
* * I found nothing in the notes to support disability due to the allowed 
psychological condition.  I also saw no evidence of any significant change in the 
claimant’s psychological status over the course of 3 1/4 years of treatment. 
{¶ 7} “* * * 
{¶ 8} “I also take serious issue with Dr. Cohen’s apparent efforts to 
provide the claimant with some type of treatment for the reported cognitive 
impairment.  It should be noted that cognitive rehabilitation for brain injury 
requires a systematic, consistent approach to developing compensatory strategies 
to overcome cognitive impairment, and it requires a separate focused treatment 
plan that is not to be intermingled with psychotherapy.  Furthermore, as I 
previously noted, the test data do not support the presence of significant cognitive 
impairment, nor does the injury itself, such that in addition to this treatment being 
inappropriate in the context of psychotherapy, it is also unnecessary.  Related to 
this is Dr. Cohen’s acceptance of the claimant’s report of cognitive impairment, 
which therefore served to reinforce her complaints of it.” 
{¶ 9} Turning finally to Starr’s alleged disability, he concluded:   
{¶ 10} “In my opinion, the claimant has most definitely reached 
maximum medical improvement for the allowed psychological condition of 
anxiety disorder with panic attacks.  There was no evidence of significant 
improvement in the claimant’s psychological status throughout the course of her 
psychological treatment.  I find that the claimant had reached maximum medical 
improvement as of the time of Dr. Cohen’s 5/24/02 summary report.  It is also my 
opinion that there was no period of temporary total disability as a result of the 
allowed psychological condition.  Support for this is found in the fact that the 
great majority of the psychotherapy was focused on unrelated issues, that the 
claimant’s complaints of cognitive impairment are not supported by the data, that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
there was no reference to panic attacks in the treatment records, and that she was 
found to be able to return to her former position of employment without 
[physical] restriction in 2002.  Consequently, the presence of disabling anxiety as 
a direct result of the work injury is not supported. * * * Finally, with respect to 
the need for continued psychological treatment, the records of Dr. Cohen show 
that the claimant has been in treatment for 3 1/4 years, without any evidence of 
any behavior change, or reported improvement in symptomatology.  The claimant 
has most probably developed a strong dependency on her psychologist, but this is 
a reflection of the likely personality disorder, which is not related to this injury.” 
{¶ 11} A staff hearing officer denied temporary total disability 
compensation based in part on Dr. Greenwald’s report.  The hearing officer also 
noted the lack of contemporaneously filed evidence of disability for 2002 and 
2003.  Further appeal was refused. 
{¶ 12} Starr filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in 
denying temporary total disability compensation.  The court of appeals disagreed, 
holding that Dr. Greenwald’s report supported the commission’s decision. 
{¶ 13} This cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right. 
{¶ 14} For 20 years, the standard for evidentiary review has been whether 
the relied-upon evidence constitutes “some evidence * * * to support the 
commission’s stated basis for its decision.”  State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, 
Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936, syllabus.  Consistent 
with its exclusive authority to evaluate the weight and credibility of evidence, the 
commission is not required to explain why it favored one piece of evidence over 
another.  State ex rel. Dobbins v. Indus. Comm., 109 Ohio St.3d 235, 2006-Ohio-
2286, 846 N.E.2d 1243, ¶ 7.  Moreover, “[i]t is immaterial whether other 
evidence, even if greater in quality and/or quantity, supports a decision contrary to 
the commission’s.”  State ex rel. Pass v. C.S.T. Extraction Co. (1996), 74 Ohio 
January Term, 2007 
5 
St.3d 373, 376, 658 N.E.2d 1055.  Accordingly, it is irrelevant that Dr. Cohen’s 
C-84 certifies temporary total disability compensation over the period in question.  
The issue is instead whether Dr. Greenwald’s report supports compensation 
denial.  The court of appeals ruled that Dr. Greenwald’s report was “some 
evidence” supporting the commission’s denial, and we affirm its judgment. 
{¶ 15} Because Starr submitted her evidence belatedly, the commission 
was limited to obtaining a file review in order to get a second opinion on Starr’s 
claimed disability over the period in question.  Dr. Greenwald performed that 
review on January 30, 2005, and prepared an extensive and meticulously detailed 
report.  After reviewing Dr. Cohen’s office notes and the medical reports of all 
previous medical examiners, he opined that many of Starr’s alleged psychological 
problems were attributable to a pre-existing personality disorder unrelated to her 
industrial injury.  He noted that neuropsychological testing did not corroborate 
some of the more severe symptoms that Starr had consistently reported to Cohen.  
As indicated previously, Dr. Greenwald criticized Cohen’s treatment and 
decisively stated that there was no temporary total disability attributable to the 
allowed psychological condition in this claim.  His report is, therefore, “some 
evidence” supporting the commission’s denial of temporary total disability 
compensation. 
{¶ 16} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Mitchell A. Stern, for appellant. 
 Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Charissa D. Payer, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. 
______________________