Title: State ex rel. Hulls v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Hulls v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 113 Ohio St.3d 438, 2007-
Ohio-2337.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. HULLS, APPELLANT, v. STATE TEACHERS 
RETIREMENT BOARD OF OHIO, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Hulls v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 
113 Ohio St.3d 438, 2007-Ohio-2337.] 
Court of appeals’ judgment denying writ of mandamus to compel State Teachers 
Retirement Board to reinstate disability-retirement benefits upheld — 
Retirement board may order recipients of disability-retirement benefits to 
undergo more than one medical examination a year. 
(No. 2006-1741─Submitted May 2, 2007─ Decided May 30, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 05AP-653. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from the denial of a writ of mandamus to compel 
appellee, State Teachers Retirement Board of Ohio, to reinstate the disability-
retirement benefits of appellant, Edward M. Hulls, and to pay those benefits from 
the date that the retirement board terminated them.  Because we hold that the 
retirement board did not abuse its discretion by ordering more than one medical 
examination of Hulls in the same year, we affirm. 
Disability-Retirement Benefits: Initial Application and Determination 
{¶ 2} Hulls was employed as a teacher for 19 years at the Southeast 
Career Center in Columbus, Ohio, where he taught plumbing.  Hulls stopped 
teaching in May 1996. 
{¶ 3} In December 1996, Hulls filed an application for disability-
retirement benefits with the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio.  In his 
application, Hulls described the nature of his disability as follows: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 4} “After start of school year in ‘94,’ while at work I would feel faint, 
very dizzy, sick at my stomach to the point of going into [the] locker room and 
lying on [the] floor.  Very short tempered with not only students, but almost 
everyone.  Could not sleep nights, would be fine on weekends.  Started going to 
doctor for various tests─Blood, MRI etc.─then was sent to psychologist.  I was 
under both doctors[’] care for approximately 1½ years for these conditions.  Dr. 
Whetstone put me on Zoloft for a while but it didn’t help.  Several times on the 
drive to school I pulled over and called in sick.  It got so bad at the latter part of 
school year ‘96’ [that] Dr. Mason suggested [I] take off the rest of the year.” 
{¶ 5} In support of his application, Hulls submitted reports from his 
psychologist, John H. Mason, Ph.D., and his physician, Paul Whetstone, M.D.  
They both certified that as of May 1996, Hulls was permanently incapacitated for 
the performance of his duties as a teacher.  Mason diagnosed Hulls as suffering 
from “Major Depression, Recurrent, Severe” and Dr. Whetstone diagnosed Hulls 
with depression. 
{¶ 6} The retirement board referred Hulls to psychiatrist Jerold H. 
Altman, M.D., for a psychiatric examination.  According to Dr. Altman, Hulls 
noted that he had always loved teaching until around 1994, when the students 
became more disruptive and the school administrators failed to support the 
teachers.  Hulls stated that although he saw Mason every four to six weeks, he did 
not think that the treatment was helping him much.  In 1994, Hulls bought a 
restaurant, and he now helps his mother run it.  He also does some plumbing and 
remodeling work.  Dr. Altman concluded that Hulls was permanently and 
completely impaired on a psychiatric basis “[d]ue to his lack of ability to develop 
insight and to tolerate and deal with the situation.” 
{¶ 7} Earl N. Metz, M.D., the chairman of the medical review board for 
the retirement board, recommended approval of Hulls’s application for disability-
retirement benefits on the condition that Hulls secure psychiatric treatment.  Hulls 
January Term, 2007 
3 
agreed to obtain psychiatric treatment or continue with the treatment he had been 
receiving for the previous two years. 
{¶ 8} The retirement board approved Hulls’s application and began 
paying him disability-retirement benefits. 
1998 Determination to Continue Benefits 
{¶ 9} In 1998, the retirement board ordered Hulls to be reexamined by 
Dr. Altman in order to determine whether his benefits should be continued.  Dr. 
Altman examined Hulls and noted that since his retirement from teaching, Hulls’s 
condition had “markedly improved.”  Dr. Altman nevertheless recommended that 
Hulls not return to teaching, because “[a]lthough there is no psychiatric disorder 
now, certainly his feeling the threat of having to return to such a teaching 
environment causes marked anxiety and depressed mood.” 
{¶ 10} Charles F. Wooley, M.D., George H. Lohrman, M.D., and Ernest 
L. Mazzaferri, M.D., members of the medical review board, reviewed Dr. 
Altman’s new report.  Dr. Wooley and Dr. Mazzaferri concluded that Hulls was 
not permanently incapacitated from performing his job and recommended that his 
disability-retirement benefits be terminated.  Dr. Lohrman was uncertain whether 
Hulls remained disabled and recommended either discussing the case in a special 
conference or ordering another psychiatric evaluation. 
{¶ 11} The retirement board then ordered Hulls to have another 
psychiatric examination, this time by Stephen F. Pariser, M.D.  Dr. Pariser 
diagnosed Hulls with major depression, single episode, in full remission, as well 
as adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and panic disorder.  Dr. Pariser 
concluded that Hulls “could return to work, either in a classroom setting with 
better adjusted students or as a plumber in a school system” and that “[s]hould 
symptoms of depression or panic re-emerge, he should be promptly seen by a 
psychiatrist and treated with an antidepressant.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 12} In July 1998, the medical review board agreed with Dr. Pariser’s 
opinion and recommended that Hulls’s disability retirement be terminated.  The 
disability-review committee of the retirement board, however, rejected the 
medical review board’s recommendation and instead recommended that Hulls’s 
disability-retirement benefits be continued.  Based on this recommendation, 
Hulls’s benefits continued. 
Additional Examinations and 
2004 Retirement-Board Decision Terminating Benefits 
{¶ 13} About five years later, in September 2003, the retirement board 
ordered Hulls to be reexamined to determine whether his disability-retirement 
benefits should be continued.  Pursuant to the board’s order, Hulls was examined 
by psychiatrist Richard H. Clary, M.D.  In his September 29, 2003 report, Dr. 
Clary concluded that Hulls should continue to receive disability-retirement 
benefits: 
{¶ 14} “Mr. Hulls has been receiving appropriate psychiatric treatment 
since 1994.  He continues to treat with Dr. Mason, a psychologist.  Mr. Hulls said 
he has not been involved in the plumbing business now for several years and 
operates a bar and restaurant.  I do have some concern about his alcohol intake 
and he said he drinks about a case of beer per week or about 3 beers per day. 
{¶ 15} “In my medical opinion, Mr. Hulls is unable to return to his job at 
Southeast Career Center teaching plumbing and he should continue on long term 
disability.” 
{¶ 16} Less than a month after receiving Dr. Clary’s report, the retirement 
board ordered that Hulls be examined by another psychiatrist, Michael R. 
Mizenko, D.O.  According to Dr. Metz, the chairman of the medical review 
board, the additional examination was prompted by a misstatement in Dr. Clary’s 
report that Hulls had received psychiatric treatment and by the fact that there had 
January Term, 2007 
5 
been no diagnosis of Hulls having any major psychiatric disorder for several 
years: 
{¶ 17} “[A] follow-up exam was done by Dr. Richard Clary in September 
2003.  Dr. Clary noted an absence of psychiatric symptoms.  Oddly, Dr. Clary 
commented that Mr. Hulls ‘* * * has been receiving appropriate psychiatric 
treatment since 1994,’ even though the record does not show that Mr. Hulls has 
ever seen a psychiatrist other than [State Teachers Retirement System] examiners, 
nor has he taken any anti-depressant or anti-anxiety medications other than a short 
trial of Zoloft which he found to be not helpful, and he has never had a psychiatric 
hospital admission.  Nevertheless, Dr. Clary made a diagnosis of dysthymic 
disorder and recommended continuation of the disability. 
{¶ 18} “Being on disability retirement for more than six years without a 
major psychiatric diagnosis or symptoms seemed out of the ordinary to the 
Medical Review Board so yet another psychiatric examination was scheduled the 
following month─this time with Dr. Michael Mizenko.”  (Emphasis sic.)   
{¶ 19} Dr. Mizenko examined Hulls on October 29, 2003, and concluded 
that Hulls’s disability-retirement benefits should not be continued, because he is 
capable of resuming full-time teaching duties.  Dr. Mizenko diagnosed Hulls with 
“Major Depression Disorder, Recurrent, Severe, in full remission.”  (Emphasis 
sic.)  Dr. Mizenko observed that Hulls had recovered from his depressive disorder 
and that the potential for a reoccurrence of his disability did not constitute a 
permanent psychiatric disability: 
{¶ 20} “The medical records in Mr. Hulls’ report clearly indicate that at 
the time of his initial application for disability status with [the State Teachers 
Retirement System] of Ohio, he was seriously depressed with associated somatic 
and anxiety symptoms.  With a break from teaching and the benefit of treatment, 
Mr. Hulls recovered from his depressive disorder.  He has not experienced a 
reoccurrence to date.  At this time, Mr. Hulls’ psychotherapy treatment is an 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
empty exercise (only satisfying the expectations of [the State Teachers Retirement 
System]), and he is not interested in working on what seems to be his limited 
motivation and capacity to work through challenging and difficult circumstances.  
He refuses to consider an adaptive strategy to reposition his mental attitude in the 
service of finding a way to function in the workplace.  Of course, he is not taking 
any psychotropic medication because he does not view himself as having a 
psychiatric condition. 
{¶ 21} “Thus, Mr. Hulls appears to advance the argument that his 
disability status is justified by the potential of a mental illness.  He has every right 
to refuse[] to accept the political/administrative circumstances─as he sees 
them─within the school where he taught.  However, his situation does not 
constitute the presence of a psychiatric disability.  Permanent disability requires 
the downhill course of a teacher’s mental status because that teacher has a mental 
illness, not the refusal to work in a school because the teacher believes that the 
school has gone downhill.”  (Emphasis sic.)   
{¶ 22} In January 2004, the medical review board unanimously 
recommended that Hulls’s benefits be terminated, finding that he was not 
permanently incapacitated from performing his teaching duties and was capable 
of resuming regular full-time teaching duties.  The board felt that Dr. Mizenko’s 
2003 medical report was the most credible.  The disability review committee 
unanimously recommended approval of the recommendation of the medical 
review board and recommended that Hulls’s disability-retirement benefits be 
terminated.  In December 2004, the retirement board terminated Hulls’s 
disability-retirement benefits. 
Mandamus Case 
{¶ 23} In June 2005, over six months after his benefits were terminated, 
Hulls filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County for a writ of 
mandamus to compel the retirement board “to reinstate his disability retirement 
January Term, 2007 
7 
benefits and to pay him benefits back to the effective date of his disability 
termination, and to continue his benefits into the future.”  Hulls also requested 
monetary damages of $100,000.  Hulls claimed that the retirement board had not 
been authorized to order that he be examined by Dr. Mizenko a little over a month 
after he had been examined by Dr. Clary and that the retirement board abused its 
discretion by terminating his disability-retirement benefit.  In August 2006, the 
court of appeals denied the writ. 
{¶ 24} This cause is now before the court upon Hulls’s appeal as of right. 
Mandamus to Correct Administrative Abuse of Discretion 
{¶ 25} Hulls asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ of 
mandamus to compel the retirement board to reinstate his disability-retirement 
benefits.  The General Assembly established the State Teachers Retirement 
System to pay retirement allowances and other benefits of Ohio public school 
teachers.  R.C. 3307.03; see, generally, Hastings, Manoloff, Sheeran & Stype, 
Baldwin’s Ohio School Law (2007), Section 11:1 (“In general, the system is a 
defined benefit pension plan which provides retirement, death, and disability 
benefits”).  The retirement board administers and manages the retirement system.  
R.C. 3307.04. 
{¶ 26} The determination of whether a member of the State Teachers 
Retirement System is entitled to disability retirement is solely within the province 
of the retirement board.  R.C. 3307.62(F) (“The state teachers retirement board 
shall render an order determining whether or not the applicant shall be granted a 
disability benefit”).  Similarly, the determination of whether a retirement-system 
member is entitled to the continued receipt of disability-retirement benefits is also 
within the exclusive authority of the retirement board.  R.C. 3307.64; Baldwin’s 
Ohio School Law, Section 11:30 (“A disability benefit may be terminated at the 
recipient’s request or when the retirement board determines, based on a medical 
examination, that the recipient is capable of resuming service similar to that from 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
which he was found disabled”).  Neither R.C. 3307.62 nor 3307.64 provides for 
an appeal from the retirement board’s decision denying or terminating these 
benefits. 
{¶ 27} Because the final retirement-board decision is not appealable, 
mandamus is available to correct an abuse of discretion by the board in its 
determination concerning disability-retirement benefits.  See, e.g., State ex rel. 
Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327, 2002-Ohio-2219, 
767 N.E.2d 719, ¶ 14, and cases cited therein (“The determination by [the State 
Teachers Retirement System] and its retirement board [the State Teachers 
Retirement Board] of whether a person is entitled to disability retirement benefits 
is reviewable by mandamus because R.C. 3307.62 does not provide any appeal 
from the administrative determination”); State ex rel. Worrell v. Ohio Police & 
Fire Pension Fund, 112 Ohio St.3d 116, 2006-Ohio-6513, 858 N.E.2d 380, ¶ 10 
(“Because the final board decision is not appealable, mandamus is available to 
correct an abuse of discretion by the board in denying disability-retirement 
benefits”).  This is consistent with the general rule that “mandamus is an 
appropriate remedy where no statutory right of appeal is available to correct an 
abuse of discretion by an administrative body.”  Pipoly at ¶ 14, citing State ex rel. 
Alben v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 133, 135, 666 N.E.2d 
1119.  “An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, 
or unconscionable.”  State ex rel. Stiles v. School Emps. Retirement Sys., 102 
Ohio St.3d 156, 2004-Ohio-2140, 807 N.E.2d 353, ¶ 13. 
Does R.C. 3307.64 Permit Multiple Examinations within a Year to Determine 
Continued Entitlement to Disability-Retirement Benefits? 
{¶ 28} Hulls contends that the retirement board abused its discretion by 
ordering him to undergo a psychiatric examination by Dr. Mizenko in 2003, 
slightly more than a month after ordering him to undergo a psychiatric 
examination by Dr. Clary.  Hulls claims that R.C. 3307.64 authorizes the board to 
January Term, 2007 
9 
order a disability-benefit recipient to submit to only one medical examination per 
year, which prevents the board from “doctor shopping” when the first 
examination results in a recommendation in favor of the recipient. 
{¶ 29} R.C. 3307.64 provides: 
{¶ 30} “The state teachers retirement board shall require any disability 
benefit recipient to submit to an annual medical examination by a physician 
selected by the board, except that the board may waive the medical examination if 
the board’s physician certifies that the recipient’s disability is ongoing.  If a 
disability benefit recipient refuses to submit to a medical examination, the 
recipient’s disability benefit shall be suspended until the recipient withdraws the 
refusal.  If the refusal continues for one year, all the recipient’s rights under and to 
the disability benefit shall be terminated as of the effective date of the original 
suspension. 
{¶ 31} “After the examination, the examiner shall report and certify to the 
board whether the disability benefit recipient is no longer physically and mentally 
incapable of resuming the service from which the recipient was found disabled.  If 
the board concurs in a report by the examining physician that the disability benefit 
recipient is no longer incapable, the payment of a disability benefit shall be 
terminated * * *.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 32} “In construing a statute, our paramount concern is legislative 
intent.”  State ex rel. Musial v. N. Olmsted, 106 Ohio St.3d 459, 2005-Ohio-5521, 
835 N.E.2d 1243, ¶ 23.  “Determining this intent requires us to read words and 
phrases in context and construe them in accordance with rules of grammar and 
common usage.”  State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409, 2006-
Ohio-5858, 856 N.E.2d 966, ¶ 11. 
{¶ 33} The plain language of R.C. 3307.64 requires the retirement board 
to order any disability-benefit recipient to submit to an annual medical 
examination by a board-selected physician, unless the board waives the exam 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
upon a physician’s determination that the disability is ongoing, but does not 
preclude the board from requiring further examinations when appropriate.  As the 
court of appeals reasoned in rejecting Hulls’s contention that the board is limited 
to one medical examination of any disability-benefit recipient per year: 
{¶ 34} “R.C. 3307.64’s command that respondent ‘shall require any 
disability benefit recipient to submit to an annual medical examination by a 
physician selected by the board’ establishes what the board, at a minimum, must 
do annually with respect to the determination of ongoing disability.  Thus, 
contrary to relator’s suggestion here, R.C. 3307.64’s reference to ‘an annual 
examination’ cannot be viewed as a prohibition or restriction on the board’s 
authority to order the number of medical examinations that are appropriate to the 
circumstances of the recipient’s particular disability.” 
{¶ 35} In effect, Hulls requests that we add language to R.C. 3307.64 that 
prevents the board from ordering more than one medical examination in any given 
year, regardless of whether the circumstances warrant further examinations.  This 
we cannot do.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Asti v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 107 Ohio 
St.3d 262, 2005-Ohio-6432, 838 N.E.2d 658, ¶ 29 (court cannot add words to or 
delete words from statutes). 
{¶ 36} This conclusion is further supported by Ohio Adm.Code 3307:1-7-
06, which was “established pursuant to section 3307.64 of the Revised Code” and 
expressly authorizes the retirement board to require a disability-benefit recipient 
to submit to more than one medical examination in a year: 
{¶ 37} “(A) The retirement board may require a recipient to submit to 
medical examinations and tests by independent medical examiners * * * and shall 
require such examinations and tests if: 
{¶ 38} “(1) The chair of the medical review board recommends such 
examinations and tests as necessary and appropriate to evaluate the recipient’s 
continued eligibility for disability benefits * * *.”  (Emphasis added.) 
January Term, 2007 
11 
{¶ 39} Notwithstanding Hulls’s assertions to the contrary, the fact that the 
rule allows the retirement board to order more than one exam per year does not 
mean that the rule is either unreasonable or in conflict with R.C. 3307.64.1  
Instead, the rule is valid because it was promulgated pursuant to statute and is 
reasonable and consistent with the provisions of R.C. 3307.64.  See State ex rel. 
Reyna v. Natalucci-Persichetti (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 194, 197, 699 N.E.2d 76; 
State ex rel. Celebrezze v. Natl. Lime & Stone Co. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 377, 382, 
627 N.E.2d 538 (“an administrative rule that is issued pursuant to statutory 
authority has the force of law unless it is unreasonable or conflicts with a statute 
covering the same subject matter”). 
{¶ 40} Therefore, R.C. 3307.64 does not preclude a second medical 
examination of a disability-benefit recipient within the same year. 
Board’s Termination of Disability-Retirement Benefits 
{¶ 41} Hulls also contends that the board abused its discretion in 
determining that a second examination by a different psychiatrist was required 
after Dr. Clary concluded that Hulls continued to be disabled. 
{¶ 42} As the record establishes, however, Dr. Metz, the chairman of the 
medical review board, specified that Dr. Clary noted an absence of psychiatric 
symptoms and erroneously stated that Hulls had been receiving psychiatric 
treatment since 1994 when, in fact, he had been treated by a psychologist rather 
than a psychiatrist during that period.  Notably, the retirement board had earlier 
conditioned Hulls’s continued receipt of benefits on his seeking psychiatric 
treatment, which Hulls never did.  Under these circumstances, and without a 
diagnosis of any major psychiatric illness for several years, the retirement board 
did not act in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner in ordering 
                                                 
1.  The version of Ohio Adm.Code 3307:1-7-06 in effect until July 2006 differs slightly from the 
current version, which is quoted, but Hulls’s argument─that the rule allows more than one medical 
exam a year and the statute allows only one─applies equally to the current version. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
that Hulls undergo a second psychiatric examination.  See State ex rel. Ruby v. 
State Teachers Retirement Sys. of Ohio (Dec. 6, 1989), Summit App. No. 13844, 
1989 WL 147983, * 1 (“where the record contains evidence which supports the 
agency’s findings, this court will not disturb that determination”); Baldwin’s Ohio 
School Law, Section 11:30, fn. 1 (“So long as evidence─even if 
conflicting─supports the board’s findings, a reviewing court will not disturb 
them”). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 43} Based on the foregoing, the retirement board did not abuse its 
discretion in ordering a second psychiatric examination of Hulls a little over a 
month after a previous board-ordered psychiatric examination.  Therefore, 
because Hulls failed to establish any abuse of discretion on the part of the board, 
he proved neither a clear legal right to have the board reinstate his disability-
retirement benefits nor a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the board to 
reinstate these benefits.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals denying the requested writ of mandamus. 
Judgment affirmed. 
MOYER, C.J., LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER 
and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
PFEIFER, J., concurs in judgment only. 
__________________ 
 
Manos, Martin, Pergram & Dietz Co., L.P.A., and James M. Dietz, for 
appellant. 
 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and John E. Patterson, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________