Title: State ex rel. Coleman v. Schwartz

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. Coleman v. Schwartz, Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1702.] 
 
 
 
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-1702 
THE STATE EX REL. COLEMAN, APPELLANT, v. SCHWARTZ ET AL.; INDUSTRIAL 
COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Coleman v. Schwartz,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1702.] 
Workers’ Compensation—Maximum medical improvement—Doctor’s report as 
some evidence upon which Industrial Commission could rely—Limited 
examination did not render doctor’s report unreliable—Appellate court’s 
denial of writ of mandamus affirmed. 
(No. 2011-1572—Submitted March 12, 2013—Decided April 30, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 10AP-714,  
2011-Ohio-3924. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Benjamin Coleman, appeals the judgment of the Tenth 
District Court of Appeals denying his request for a writ of mandamus to require 
the Industrial Commission, appellee, to vacate its order terminating his 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
compensation for temporary total disability and to issue a new order that his 
compensation be continued. 
{¶ 2} The court of appeals concluded that the commission did not abuse 
its discretion when it terminated temporary total disability compensation based on 
the report of Dr. V.P. Mannava, who opined that the allowed conditions in 
Coleman’s workers’ compensation claim had reached maximum medical 
improvement. 
{¶ 3} For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 
{¶ 4} Coleman was employed as a window washer when he was injured 
in a motor-vehicle accident while driving a company truck on July 9, 1984.  His 
workers’ compensation claim was originally allowed for cervical, thoracic, and 
lumbar strain; herniated cervical disc; cervical degenerative disc disease; and 
related conditions. 
{¶ 5} On January 30, 2009, following an appeal to the Hamilton County 
Court of Common Pleas, his claim was amended to include the additional allowed 
condition of degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine.  As a result, Coleman 
filed a motion for temporary total disability compensation, to be effective 
beginning October 12, 2006, based on the report of his treating physician, Dr. 
Luis Pagani. 
{¶ 6} A district hearing officer concluded that Coleman was unable to 
return to employment as a result of the newly allowed low-back condition and 
granted temporary total disability compensation to be effective beginning March 
10, 2007. 
{¶ 7} On December 31, 2009, Dr. Mannava performed an independent 
medical examination on behalf of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.  Dr. 
Mannava stated in his report that he accepted Coleman’s allowed conditions and 
the objective findings in Coleman’s medical records.  Dr. Mannava reported that 
during the examination, Coleman complained of pain when his ankle reflex was 
JANUARY TERM, 2013 
3 
 
checked and said that further examination of his body would cause him more 
pain. 
{¶ 8} At that point, according to the report, Dr. Mannava stopped the 
examination and advised Coleman that if further examination was going to result 
in pain, there was no point in continuing the evaluation and causing him more 
problems or symptoms.  In his report, Dr. Mannava stated in bold print:  “NOTE: 
There is absolutely nothing I did that should have caused any pain or 
discomfort, especially in the knee.”  He reported that Coleman “did not show 
any difficulties leaving our office [and] actually climbed up one-half flight of 
stairs at a rapid pace without any difficulty.” 
{¶ 9} Dr. Mannava concluded: 
 
[Based] on the available medical and limited evaluations today, 
there is no evidence of any specific change or indication for any 
new treatment plan.  There is no objective evidence to support any 
further fundamental, functional or physiological changes within 
reasonable medical probability in his conditions despite ongoing 
current treatment including any pain management by Dr. Pagani, 
rehabilitation or other procedures. 
Despite today’s limited evaluation in my opinion [based] 
on the above discussions and evidence he has reached maximum 
medical improvement. 
 
{¶ 10} Based on Dr. Mannava’s report, the bureau filed a motion to 
terminate Coleman’s disability payments.  A district hearing officer determined 
that Coleman had reached maximum medical improvement and terminated 
temporary total disability compensation as of February 19, 2010.  A staff hearing 
officer affirmed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 11} Coleman’s complaint in mandamus alleged that the commission 
acted contrary to law when it relied on the report of Dr. Mannava.  According to 
Coleman, Dr. Mannava did not examine his low back for purposes of evaluating 
his lumbar degenerative disc disease and thus, the doctor’s opinion was based on 
an incomplete medical evaluation and his report could not constitute some 
evidence upon which the commission could base its decision to terminate 
disability compensation. 
{¶ 12} The court of appeals concluded that Dr. Mannava’s report 
constituted some evidence upon which the commission could rely.  The court 
noted that Dr. Mannava had examined Coleman (albeit the exam was limited); 
had reviewed Coleman’s medical records; had observed his ability to walk, sit, 
and move around the office; and had specified that there was no indication of any 
new treatment plan.  State ex rel. Coleman v. Schwartz, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-714, 
2011-Ohio-3924, 2011 WL 3452123, ¶ 6-8.  The court of appeals determined that 
Coleman had not demonstrated that the commission had abused its discretion 
when it terminated his temporary total disability compensation in reliance on Dr. 
Mannava’s report.  Accordingly, the court denied the writ.  Id. at ¶ 8-9. 
{¶ 13} Coleman’s appeal as of right is now before the court. 
{¶ 14} We must determine whether Dr. Mannava’s limited examination 
prevented him from rendering an opinion that was sufficiently reliable to 
constitute some evidence to support the commission’s decision. 
{¶ 15} When the commission makes a determination regarding the extent 
of disability, it must consider every allowed condition in the claim.  State ex rel. 
Richardson v. Quarto Mining Co., 73 Ohio St.3d 358, 359, 652 N.E.2d 1027 
(1995).  If a physician does not provide a complete evaluation of all the medical 
conditions, then that physician’s report does not constitute some evidence upon 
which the commission may rely.  Id.  See State ex rel. Shaffer v. Indus. Comm., 
10th Dist. No. 03AP-486, 2004-Ohio-3838, 2004 WL 1615063, ¶ 2 (concluding 
JANUARY TERM, 2013 
5 
 
that the commission abused its discretion in denying an application for permanent 
total disability compensation based solely upon the medical report of a physician 
who had expressly declined to provide a complete evaluation and had 
recommended that the claimant be evaluated by an appropriate specialist). 
{¶ 16} Here, the court of appeals correctly concluded that Coleman failed 
to demonstrate that Dr. Mannava’s limited examination rendered his opinion 
unreliable.  First, Dr. Mannava’s report lists the allowed conditions, including the 
newly allowed lumbar condition that Coleman described to him.  Second, the 
report lists the medical records that Dr. Mannava reviewed, including multiple 
MRIs of Coleman’s lumbar spine, and the report indicates that he accepted the 
objective findings in those records.  He conceded that his examination had been 
limited due to Coleman’s complaints of pain, but he nevertheless described his 
observations of Coleman moving around the office—walking, sitting, and getting 
on and off the exam table. 
{¶ 17} Finally, the report identifies facts that support Dr. Mannava’s 
conclusion, including the lack of a new or changed treatment plan and the lack of 
objective evidence of any “fundamental, functional or physiological changes 
within reasonable medical probability in his conditions despite ongoing current 
treatment including any pain management by Dr. Pagani, rehabilitation or other 
procedures.” 
{¶ 18} Consequently, we hold that Dr. Mannava’s report was sufficiently 
reliable to constitute some evidence to support the commission’s decision.  Once 
the injured employee’s allowed condition has reached maximum medical 
improvement, compensation for temporary total disability must be terminated.  
R.C. 4123.56(A).  Thus, the commission did not abuse its discretion. 
{¶ 19} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and 
O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
FRENCH, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
Clements, Mahin & Cohen, L.P.A., Co., Edward Cohen, and Paul A. 
Lewandowski, for appellant. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Stephen D. Plymale, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________