Title: State ex rel. Boyd v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Co.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Boyd v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-1508.] 
 
 
 
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. 2016-OHIO-1508 
THE STATE EX REL. BOYD, APPELLANT, v. SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY  
ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Boyd v. Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., Slip Opinion  
No. 2016-Ohio-1508.] 
Workers’ compensation—Permanent total disability—Industrial Commission did 
not abuse discretion in relying on examining physician’s report as evidence 
supporting order denying permanent total disability or in rejecting 
vocational consultant’s opinion in favor of Commission’s own analysis of 
vocational factors—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2015-1023—Submitted January 26, 2016—Decided April 13, 2016.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 14AP-413,  
2015-Ohio-2352. 
_______________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator-appellant, Robert Boyd, appeals the judgment of the Tenth 
District Court of Appeals denying his complaint for a writ of mandamus that would 
require the Industrial Commission to award him permanent-total-disability 
compensation. 
{¶ 2} We find that the commission’s order was supported by evidence in 
the record.  Therefore, the commission did not abuse its discretion when it denied 
Boyd’s request, and we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
{¶ 3} Boyd retired from the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (“Scotts”) in 
1983.  He filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits that was allowed in 
2005 for asbestosis in both lungs.  In 2013, Boyd applied for permanent-total-
disability benefits, and he submitted a report from Marissa Mertz, M.D., in support 
of his application.  Dr. Mertz had conducted an independent medical evaluation of 
Boyd for purposes of determining permanent and total disability.  She was not his 
treating physician. 
{¶ 4} Robert F. Shadel, M.D., reviewed the claim file on behalf of Scotts.  
Herbert A. Grodner, M.D., a board-certified pulmonologist, examined Boyd on 
behalf of the commission.  He concluded that Boyd had a mild restrictive 
impairment from the asbestosis that would not prevent Boyd from performing light 
work. 
{¶ 5} Following a hearing, a staff hearing officer at the commission denied 
Boyd’s application based on the medical reports of Dr. Shadel and Dr. Grodner and 
the hearing officer’s analysis of Boyd’s vocational disability factors. 
{¶ 6} Boyd filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus that would require 
the commission to vacate its decision.  The court of appeals denied the writ. 
{¶ 7} This matter is before this court on Boyd’s appeal as of right. 
{¶ 8} Permanent total disability is the “inability to perform sustained 
remunerative employment due to the allowed conditions in the claim.”  Ohio 
January Term, 2016 
 
3
Adm.Code 4121-3-34(B)(1); see also State ex rel. Guthrie v. Indus. Comm., 133 
Ohio St.3d 244, 2012-Ohio-4637, 977 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 8.  Mandamus is the 
appropriate means to challenge the commission’s determination of a claimant’s 
extent of disability.  State ex rel. Liposchak v. Indus. Comm., 90 Ohio St.3d 276, 
278, 737 N.E.2d 519 (2000). 
{¶ 9} The party challenging the decision must demonstrate that the 
commission abused its discretion by entering an order not supported by any 
evidence in the record.  State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 
20, 508 N.E.2d 936 (1987).  This court’s role in reviewing mandamus actions 
challenging the commission’s decision is limited to determining whether there is 
some evidence in the record to support the commission’s stated basis for its 
decision.  Id. 
{¶ 10} Boyd maintains that the commission abused its discretion when it 
relied on the report of Dr. Grodner.  According to Boyd, Dr. Grodner was not 
qualified to give an opinion because he did not take X-rays of Boyd and he was not 
certified as a “B reader” to interpret the X-rays, a requirement for asbestosis claims 
by the commission’s Resolution R03-1-02.  Boyd also contends that even if Dr. 
Grodner’s report is competent evidence, the commission abused its discretion when 
it did not rely on the vocational evidence in the record, including a report from 
consultant Molly Williams, which supported a finding of permanent total disability. 
{¶ 11} Boyd’s arguments fail because (1) Resolution R03-1-02 does not 
apply here, (2) Dr. Grodner’s report was evidence that supported the commission’s 
decision, and (3) the commission performed its own analysis of the vocational 
factors and was not required to accept Williams’s findings. 
{¶ 12} Dr. Grodner, a board-certified physician in pulmonology and 
internal medicine, conducted an independent medical examination of Boyd to 
determine the extent of permanent total disability.  In his report, Dr. Grodner stated 
that he had reviewed Boyd’s medical records, including CT scans and X-rays, and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
had conducted a physical examination and pulmonary-function studies.  He 
concluded that Boyd was only minimally impaired as a result of his asbestosis. 
{¶ 13} Boyd takes issue with the fact that Dr. Grodner did not take X-rays 
and is not a certified “B reader” who could provide the written interpretation 
required by Resolution R03-1-02 for a specialist to give an opinion on disability 
related to asbestos.  Boyd’s argument misinterprets the resolution. 
{¶ 14} Resolution R03-1-02 relates to the medical evidence necessary to 
support a claim for an asbestos-related condition.  It requires the injured worker to 
initially produce medical evidence when an asbestos-related claim is being made 
and prior to adjudication of a claim if and when it is contested.  Resolution R03-1-
02 states that  
 
it is the policy of the Commission that, at a minimum, the following 
evidence is necessary to be submitted by the injured worker prior to 
the referral of the claim to the Administrator for an examination by 
a qualified medical specialist pursuant to the provisions of Section 
4123.68 of the Ohio Revised Code concerning claims for asbestosis, 
* * *, and at a minimum, the following evidence is also necessary to 
be submitted by an injured worker prior to the adjudication of a 
contested claim filed for any asbestos-related occupational disease, 
other than mesothelioma: 
 A written interpretation of x-rays by a certified “B reader.” 
 Pulmonary functions studies and interpretation by a licensed 
physician. 
 An opinion of causal relationship by a licensed physician. 
 
(Emphasis added.) 
January Term, 2016 
 
5
{¶ 15} The requirements of Resolution R03-1-02 apply to the initial 
diagnosis and claim allowance of asbestosis.  Anders v. Powertrain Div., Gen. 
Motors Corp., 157 Ohio App.3d 815, 2004-Ohio-2469, 813 N.E.2d 923, ¶ 25 (3d 
Dist.).  Boyd’s claim for asbestosis was already allowed and is not being contested; 
thus, Dr. Grodner was not performing the mandatory examination as a qualified 
medical specialist to diagnose an occupational disease identified in R.C. 4123.68.  
Moreover, Resolution R03-1-02 requires the injured worker to submit the necessary 
medical evidence.  For these reasons, Resolution R03-1-02 does not apply to the 
report of Dr. Grodner.  Consequently, Boyd fails to demonstrate that the 
commission abused its discretion when it relied on Dr. Grodner’s report as evidence 
supporting its order denying permanent total disability. 
{¶ 16} Boyd also maintains that the hearing officer was required to rely on 
the vocational evidence in the record, such as his advanced age of 90 and the fact 
that he no longer drives.  Boyd submitted a report from the vocational consultant, 
Williams, who opined that, based on the disability factors, in addition to the allowed 
medical condition, “it is obvious that the claimant is permanently and totally 
disabled.” 
{¶ 17} This court has held that the commission is the exclusive evaluator of 
disability and is not required to accept vocational evidence, even if uncontroverted.  
State ex rel. Jackson v. Indus. Comm., 79 Ohio St.3d 266, 270, 680 N.E.2d 1233 
(1997).  The commission, as the expert on vocational evidence, had the discretion 
to reject Williams’s report in favor of its own analysis of vocational factors.  See 
id. at 271.  In doing so, the commission acknowledged that Boyd’s age was a 
negative factor but contrasted it with positive factors such as his high school 
education and lengthy work history, including a supervisory position, until 2008.  
A claimant’s advanced age need not be an insurmountable barrier to reemployment.  
State ex rel. Ehlinger v. Indus. Comm., 76 Ohio St.3d 400, 402, 667 N.E.2d 1210 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
(1996);  State ex rel. Moss v. Indus. Comm., 75 Ohio St.3d 414, 417, 662 N.E.2d 
364 (1996). 
{¶ 18} The commission also noted that Boyd expressed concerns about his 
vision but that he was able to pass the vision test to obtain his driver’s license.  
Thus, the hearing officer concluded that Boyd has the experience and skills, along 
with a driver’s license, to return to his prior employment as a runner for a car 
dealership. 
{¶ 19} The commission’s order was based on evidence in the record.  Boyd 
failed to demonstrate that the commission abused its discretion, and his complaint 
in mandamus fails.  We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, KENNEDY, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., 
concur. 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
LANZINGER, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
Michael J. Muldoon, for appellant. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Patsy A. Thomas, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Robert A. Minor, for appellee 
the Scotts Miracle-Gro Company. 
______________________