Case Title: State ex rel. Kestler v. Wellness Ctr. Health Assoc., L.L.C.

Citation: 2009-Ohio-2624

Docket Number: 

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2009-06-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Kestler v. Wellness Ctr. Health Assoc., L.L.C., 122 Ohio St.3d 131, 2009-
Ohio-2624.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. KESTLER, APPELLANT, v. WELLNESS CENTER HEALTH 
ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Kestler v. Wellness Ctr. Health Assoc., L.L.C.,  
122 Ohio St.3d 131, 2009-Ohio-2624.] 
Workers’ compensation — Temporary total disability compensation — 
Commission’s reliance on report with two inconsistent conclusions is 
error when commission does not clarify which of two conclusions it 
adopted to deny compensation — Cause returned to commission for 
further consideration and clarification. 
(No. 2008-0211 — Submitted April 4, 2009 — Decided June 11, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
No. 07AP-56, 2007-Ohio-7012. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Kristen M. Kestler, injured her back while working as a 
physical therapist for Dr. Brian Nobbs and was paid temporary total disability 
compensation from October 7, 2004, through October 1, 2005.  She returned to 
her job on October 3, 2005, but worked for only a few days before her allowed 
conditions allegedly prevented her from continuing.  Her request for temporary 
total disability compensation for that period is now at issue. 
{¶ 2} Dr. Nobbs certified that due to her allowed conditions, Kestler had 
been unable to return to her former position of employment from October 11, 
2005 through an estimated return date of February 28, 2006. But a November 3, 
2005 office note from Dr. Earl Scheidler suggested a different reason why Kestler 
was not working: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} “I have encouraged her that I feel like her getting back into work 
would be appropriate and, in my opinion and hers, as we discuss it, she feels that 
she could go back to work only she has no one to watch the baby.” 
{¶ 4} At the request of appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio, Dr. 
Douglas C. Gula examined Kestler on March 8, 2006.  He believed that Kestler 
was at maximum medical improvement (“MMI”), but offered contradictory 
opinions as to whether further diagnostic testing was necessary.  Dr. Gula also 
stated that Kestler was not temporarily totally disabled, but never specifically 
addressed whether she could return to her former job – the standard by which 
temporary total disability is measured.  This is potentially significant because the 
restrictions that he imposed may be inconsistent with Kestler’s physical-therapy 
duties: 
{¶ 5} “I do believe the patient is capable of performing a light to 
sedentary type of occupation.  I do not see any limitation with regards to function 
of the upper and lower extremities.  She will alternate between sitting, standing 
and walking.  * * * Restrictions of weight would be approximately 20 lbs. lifting 
and 10 lbs. carrying.  She will only be able to utilize 20 lbs. from a push or pull 
standpoint.  Otherwise, I do not believe there are any limitations as related to the 
upper extremity function.   
 
{¶ 6} “* * * 
{¶ 7} “I do believe the patient does indeed need an extensive course of 
rehabilitation.  She is definitely in desperate need of a work conditioning and 
subsequently a work hardening program.  Finally, a FCE [Functional Capacity 
Evaluation] should be performed in the end to determine the exact capabilities of 
the patient.  I believe that a work condition-work hardening program is absolutely 
essential in order to allow the patient to return to gainful employment.” 
{¶ 8} A commission staff hearing officer denied temporary total 
disability compensation: 
January Term, 2009 
3 
{¶ 9} “[T]he injured worker was not temporarily and totally disabled as a 
result of the allowed conditions in the claim beginning on 10/11/2005. * * *  
[T]he Hearing Officer relies upon the opinion of Dr. Douglas Gula, set forth in a 
report dated 03/08/2006.  Dr. Gula opined that the medical evidence did not 
support the requested period of temporary total disability compensation.  There is 
no treatment note indicating the reason that the injured worker went off work on 
10/11/2005.  The treatment notes in file from October and November 2005 
indicate a notation from the physician that the injured worker ‘feels that she can 
go back to work only she has no one to watch the baby.’ ” 
{¶ 10} Further appeal was refused. 
{¶ 11} Kestler filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County.  The court upheld the commission’s order and denied the writ, 
prompting this appeal as of right. 
{¶ 12} The commission denied temporary total disability compensation 
based on Dr. Gula’s March 8, 2006 report and Dr. Scheidler’s office notes, 
particularly the November 3, 2005 entry.  We must determine whether the 
commission’s order is supported by the evidence. 
{¶ 13} Dr. Scheidler’s November 3, 2005 notation suggested that Kestler 
should return to work and claimed that she said that she would do so but for her 
lack of child care.  Kestler, however, denies that child-care concerns prevented 
her return to her former position of employment and emphasizes that she reported 
to work on October 3 – just days prior to the disability period at issue — and 
babysitting was obviously not an issue then. She also maintains that any alleged 
child-care issues are irrelevant because she had no need for those services due to 
her medical inability to return to her former position. 
{¶ 14} Kestler asserts that Dr. Scheidler’s office notes do not establish 
that she could medically resume her former duties, and we agree that his notes are 
vague. Scheidler never stated that Kestler was medically able to return to her 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
former job as a physical therapist.  He stated only that Kestler would benefit from 
a return to some unspecified “work.” Dr. Scheidler’s notes also record the 
continued presence of the symptoms that previously rendered her unable to return 
to her former job. He reported chronic back pain, paraspinal spasm, and extreme 
tenderness on palpation. Dr. Scheidler continued her pain medication, 
recommended regular use of her TENS unit, and indicated that epidural injections 
may be appropriate. We do not, therefore, find that Dr. Scheidler’s notes support 
the conclusion that Kestler was medically able to return to her former job after 
October 11, 2005. 
{¶ 15} The commission also relied on Dr. Gula’s March 8, 2006 report.  
Dr. Gula concluded that Kestler (1) had reached MMI and (2) was not temporarily 
totally disabled.  The commission, however, did not indicate which of these 
conclusions it adopted.  This is problematic because although conclusion (2) 
suggests that Kestler could return to her former job, Dr. Gula’s report contains 
physical restrictions that might be inconsistent with her job duties and hence may 
be too internally inconsistent in that regard to withstand scrutiny under State ex 
rel. Lopez v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 445, 449, 633 N.E.2d 528 
(when report’s internal inconsistencies cannot be reconciled, report cannot qualify 
as “some evidence” supporting commission’s decision).  Dr. Gula’s MMI 
conclusion, on the other hand, appears less ambiguous and may be sufficient to 
support the denial of temporary total compensation.  The commission must clarify 
which of Dr. Gula’s conclusions it was relying on to deny compensation. 
{¶ 16} We accordingly reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and 
return the cause to the commission for further consideration and an amended 
order. 
Judgment reversed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
January Term, 2009 
5 
__________________ 
James A. Whittaker, L.L.C., James A. Whittaker, and Laura I. Murphy, for 
appellant. 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Elise Porter, Deputy Solicitor, for 
appellee. 
______________________