Case Title: State ex rel. Sigler v. Lubrizol Corp.

Citation: 2013-Ohio-3686

Docket Number: 2011-1902

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Sigler v. Lubrizol Corp., Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3686.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2013-OHIO-3686 
THE STATE EX REL. SIGLER, APPELLEE, v. LUBRIZOL CORPORATION ET AL., 
APPELLANTS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Sigler v. Lubrizol Corp.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-3686.] 
Workers’ 
compensation—Mandamus—Hearing 
before 
commission—Due 
process—Commissioner not required to attend hearing in order to vote on 
matter being heard—Commissioner required only to make meaningful 
review of evidence from hearing—Due process not violated when voting 
commissioner was apprised of evidence and arguments by commission 
employee who attended hearing and referred to handwritten notes taken 
during hearing—Writ denied. 
(No. 2011-1902—Submitted June 4, 2013—Decided August 29, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 10AP-255,  
2011-Ohio-4917. 
____________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellants, the Industrial Commission and the Lubrizol 
Corporation, appeal the judgment of the court of appeals granting the request of 
appellee, Terry Sigler, for a writ of mandamus requiring the commission to vacate 
its order that overturned a staff hearing officer’s award of permanent-total-
disability compensation. 
{¶ 2} The appellants object to the court of appeals’ determination that 
the commission’s hearing did not comport with the due process standards set forth 
in State ex rel. Ormet Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 54 Ohio St.3d 102, 561 N.E.2d 920 
(1990).  The court so held because one of the two commissioners voting to 
overturn had not attended the hearing, but had relied on an oral summary of the 
evidence from a commission hearing officer who had attended the hearing and 
taken handwritten notes. 
{¶ 3} We agree with the dissenting opinion that Sigler failed to 
demonstrate that the commission’s voting procedures violated due process.  We 
reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and deny the writ. 
{¶ 4} Terry Sigler was employed by Lubrizol as a maintenance mechanic 
when he was injured on September 21, 2001.  His workers’ compensation claim 
was allowed for acute myofascial strain lumbar, bulging discs, and radiculopathy. 
{¶ 5} On April 13, 2006, Sigler applied for permanent-total-disability 
compensation.  A staff hearing officer approved the award, but the court of 
appeals ordered the commission to reconsider Sigler’s application.  State ex rel. 
Lubrizol v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-204, 2008-Ohio-463.  
After a hearing on November 5, 2008, a staff hearing officer again awarded Sigler 
permanent-total-disability compensation. 
{¶ 6} Lubrizol filed a motion for reconsideration before the three-
member commission.  Following a hearing, the commission issued an order dated 
August 12, 2009, in which it granted the motion for reconsideration to correct “a 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
clear mistake of law,” vacated the award, and denied Sigler’s application.  
Commissioner Kevin R. Abrams did not attend the hearing.  On the order, above 
the signature of Commissioner Abrams, the order states: 
 
On 08/12/2009, I discussed this matter with Bob Cromley, 
who was present at the 07/28/09 hearing.  Mr. Cromley 
summarized the testimony, evidence and arguments presented at 
[the] hearing.  After this discussion and a review of all the 
evidence contained within the claim file, I vote to find jurisdiction 
and grant the Employer’s request for reconsideration, filed 
12/26/2008.  I further vote to vacate the Staff Hearing Officer 
order issued 11/20/2008, and to deny the Injured Worker’s IC-2 
Application for Permanent Total Disability. 
  
{¶ 7} Sigler filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Tenth 
District Court of Appeals, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion 
when it issued the reconsideration order because  
 
the decision was made by a Commissioner who was not present at 
the hearing, who did not hear the evidence, and who relied upon a 
recitation of the evidence by an individual who was present, but 
who did not record the proceedings nor was a court reporter 
present to transcribe the arguments or the testimony. 
 
{¶ 8} A magistrate permitted the parties to file affidavits to clarify what 
occurred at the hearing.  The commission submitted the affidavit of Bob Cromley, 
who attested that he has been employed by the commission as a hearing officer 
since 1985, and that at times, he assisted the commissioners at hearings.  Cromley 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
further attested that he attended the hearing on July 28, 2009, took handwritten 
notes, and used those notes as a reference when he later met with Commissioner 
Abrams on August 12, 2009, to discuss the case.  Cromley stated that he 
“summarized the testimony, evidence and arguments from the hearing,” including 
the testimony of Sigler. 
{¶ 9} Glen Richardson, Sigler’s attorney, submitted an affidavit in which 
he stated that Sigler’s testimony “included a recitation of his complaints and 
symptoms, his efforts at attempting to go through vocational rehabilitation and his 
anticipated second surgical procedure on his back.” 
{¶ 10} Michael J. Spisak, Lubrizol’s counsel, attested that “the testimony 
offered by Mr. Sigler on July 28, 2009, was consistent with, and was substantially 
similar to, the testimony he offered” at previous hearings. 
{¶ 11} The magistrate concluded that Sigler had failed to prove that he 
was deprived of due process when Abrams reviewed the claim file and was orally 
apprised of the evidence and testimony by Cromley, who used his handwritten 
notes as a reference.  The magistrate recommended that the court deny the writ. 
{¶ 12} Sigler filed objections to the magistrate’s report.  A divided court 
of appeals concluded that Abrams was unable to evaluate the credibility of 
Sigler’s testimony in the absence of a complete record of the testimony presented.  
The court sustained Sigler’s objections, granted the writ of mandamus, and 
ordered the commission to rehear Sigler’s application.  State ex rel. Sigler v. 
Lubrizol Corp., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-255, 2011-Ohio-4917. 
{¶ 13} This cause is now before the court on an appeal as of right. 
{¶ 14} A commissioner is not required to attend a permanent-total-
disability hearing in order to participate in the decision.  State ex rel. Dayton 
Walther Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 71 Ohio St.3d 105, 107, 642 N.E.2d 349 (1994).  
In addition, reviewing a transcript is not the only method by which an absentee 
commissioner can review the evidence in order to satisfy a party’s due process 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
rights.  State ex rel. Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Indus. Comm., 65 Ohio 
St.3d 351, 353, 603 N.E.2d 1026 (1992).  However, a commissioner’s failure to 
consider any evidence from the hearing destroys the presumption of regularity 
that attaches to the administrative proceeding and violates the claimant’s due 
process rights.  State ex rel. Ormet Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 54 Ohio St.3d at 107, 
561 N.E.2d 920. 
{¶ 15} In Ormet, we held that the due process requirement of a full and 
fair hearing means that the decisionmaker must, in some meaningful manner, 
consider and appraise all the evidence to justify the decision.  Id.  The method of 
review is secondary.  Id. at 104-105.  For instance, we approved the use of 
subordinates to analyze the evidence and prepare a summary for the absent voting 
member to use to consider and appraise the evidence presented.  Id. at 105-106.  
In State ex rel. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Indus. Comm., 68 Ohio St.3d 329, 626 
N.E.2d 678 (1994), we held that there was no due process violation when the 
absent commissioner had an audiotape of the hearing, a summary of the hearing 
prepared by a legal advisor, and additional discussion with the other 
commissioners who were present at the hearing. 
{¶ 16} Here, Abrams stated that he had reviewed the claim file and talked 
with Cromley, a longtime commission hearing officer, who summarized the 
hearing testimony, evidence, and arguments for him.  Cromley’s affidavit 
supported Abrams’s statement that Cromley orally summarized the proceeding, 
using as a reference the handwritten notes he took during the hearing. 
{¶ 17} The affidavits from counsel indicated that Sigler’s testimony was 
not extensive or complicated.  The claim file contained transcripts from earlier 
hearings in which Sigler had testified.  Sigler presented no evidence to contradict 
these statements, but merely questioned the lack of a hearing transcript or written 
summary of the evidence. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 18} The court of appeals cited Ormet and Ohio Bell as controlling 
authority, yet the court did not discuss what Abrams had done and whether his 
review met the Ormet standard.  Rather, the appellate court offered what it 
believed was the better practice for the commission to follow:  
 
With today’s technological capabilities, there is no reason 
the commission cannot have a complete record, even a video 
record, of the testimony before it.  An absent commissioner could 
then make the appropriate decision without risking a violation of 
Due Process of Law. 
 
2011-Ohio-4917, ¶ 13. 
{¶ 19} The dissent acknowledged that the best practice may be for a 
voting commissioner to either attend the hearing or to review a transcript or other 
verbatim recording of the proceeding; however, that practice is not required by 
law.  Id. at ¶ 15 (Sadler, J., dissenting).  Instead, the dissent noted,  
 
The record indicates that Commissioner Abrams considered the 
“testimony, evidence and arguments” from the hearing through 
Cromley’s post-hearing summary; however, the majority failed to 
explain how that summary did not constitute “meaningful” review 
under Ormet. * * *  
Because relator has presented no evidence to contradict the 
statements of Commissioner Abrams and Cromley, I find that 
relator failed to sustain his burden of showing that the 
commission’s voting procedure violated due process under the 
standard articulated in Ormet. 
 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
Id. at ¶ 22- 23 (Sadler, J., dissenting). 
{¶ 20} There is a presumption of regularity that attaches to commission 
hearings.  State ex rel. Ohio Bell Tel. Co., 68 Ohio St.3d at 333, 626 N.E.2d 678;  
State ex rel. Ohio Bldg. Restoration, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 64 Ohio St.3d 188, 
189, 593 N.E.2d 1388 (1992).  Sigler challenged that presumption when he 
challenged the regularity of the voting procedure, raising due process concerns.  
Under these circumstances, the burden was on Sigler to prove noncompliance 
with Ormet.  Ohio Bell at 333. 
{¶ 21} We agree with the dissenting opinion that Sigler failed to prove 
that he was deprived of due process when Abrams reviewed the claim file, 
including Sigler’s testimony from prior hearings, and was orally apprised of the 
evidence by Cromley, who had attended the hearing and who used his 
handwritten notes as a reference in his discussion with Abrams. 
{¶ 22} Consequently, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and 
deny the writ. 
Judgment reversed  
and writ denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., 
concur. 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., dissent and would affirm the judgment of 
the court of appeals. 
____________________ 
Bentoff & Duber Co., L.P.A., and Glen Richardson, for appellee. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Patsy A. Thomas, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellant Industrial Commission. 
Weston Hurd, L.L.P., and Michael J. Spisak, for appellant Lubrizol 
Corporation. 
________________________