Title: State ex rel. Druggan v. Indus. Comm.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Druggan v. Indus. Comm., ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 1999-Ohio-336.] 
 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. DRUGGAN v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Druggan v. Indus. Comm. (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Workers’ compensation — Mandamus to compel Industrial Commission to vacate 
its suspension of relator’s workers’ compensation claim — Writ denied 
when relator ignored or failed to cooperate with three scheduled medical 
examinations. 
(No. 96-2258 — Submitted March 9, 1999 — Decided June 23, 1999.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
 
Relator-claimant, Harold W. Druggan, injured his low back at respondent 
Kinnear Division, Harsco Corporation, in 1986.  In 1992, Harsco, as a self-insured 
employer, authorized treatment with a transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation 
(“TENS”) unit. 
 
Sometime in 1994, Harsco questioned the continuing appropriateness of 
TENS treatment.  This inquiry was based on (1) an article in the New England 
Journal of Medicine1 that questioned the value of TENS units and (2) what Harsco 
considered to be nonresponsive answers from claimant’s attending physician on 
continued use of TENS. 
 
Harsco then scheduled claimant for a medical examination, which claimant 
refused to attend.  As a result, Harsco quit paying the TENS bills.  These events 
prompted claimant’s motion for an order to pay outstanding TENS bills and 
Harsco’s motion to suspend the claim pending claimant’s attendance at the medical 
evaluation. 
 
A district hearing occurred before respondent Industrial Commission of 
Ohio on February 23, 1995.  The resulting order, for reasons unknown, addressed 
only claimant’s motion and ordered “continued payment for the T[E]NS.”  Harsco 
and claimant both appealed. 
 
 
2
 
The May 17, 1995 staff hearing addressed not only the two appeals but 
Harsco’s outstanding motion as well, noting that the latter had actually been argued 
before the district hearing officer.  The staff hearing officer ruled that Harsco had 
the right to examine claimant on the issue of continued necessity for TENS 
treatments.  It affirmed the district hearing officer’s order in all other respects.  The 
order did not indicate whether the matter was to be reset for hearing after the 
medical examination took place.  Claimant responded with a complaint in 
mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, challenging Harsco’s right 
to an examination.  Harsco, hoping perhaps to reopen the issue of claimant’s 
entitlement to permanent total disability benefits awarded earlier, filed a cross-
complaint, challenging the commission’s right to limit the exam to the necessity of 
TENS. 
 
While that mandamus action was pending, Harsco scheduled claimant for 
another medical evaluation.  Claimant again refused to attend.  Harsco responded 
with another motion to suspend.  A staff hearing officer granted the motion, and 
the commission refused reconsideration.  Claimant responded with this original 
action in mandamus in this court, seeking an order to the commission to vacate its 
suspension of his claim. 
 
This cause is now before this court as an original action in mandamus. 
__________________ 
 
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, 
for relator. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Michael A. Vanderhorst, 
Assistant Attorney General, for respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio. 
 
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and Karl J. Sutter, for respondent Kinnear 
Division, Harsco Corporation. 
__________________ 
 
 
3
 
Per Curiam.  R.C. 4123.651(C) reads: 
 
“If, without good cause, an employee refuses to submit to any examination 
scheduled under this section * * *, his right to have his claim for compensation or 
benefits considered, if his claim is pending before the administrator, commission, 
or a district or staff hearing officer, or to receive any payment for compensation or 
benefits previously granted, is suspended during the period of refusal.” 
 
Claimant ignored, or failed to cooperate with, three scheduled medical 
examinations.  The commission, acting on the statute, then suspended his claim.  
Claimant’s challenge is largely premised on his belief that suspension was 
improper because the exam was improper.  In the same vein, he asserts that he had 
good cause not to attend the examination because it would have exceeded the 
scope of TENS use.  Again, these arguments are nothing more than speculation, 
and speculation does not equal good cause. 
 
Claimant states that suspension violated due process because the suspension 
order itself was issued without hearing.  This argument fails.  The district and staff 
hearings were both generated in part by Harsco’s motion to suspend.  Moreover, 
the August 16, 1995 exam notice to claimant indicated in boldface that claimant’s 
benefits could be stopped by refusal to attend.  Claimant was, therefore, on notice 
of the potential suspension and had two hearings at which to present his defense. 
 
Claimant, in a related argument, attacks the suspension order, claiming that 
the commission was not authorized to issue it.  R.C. 4123.651(C) says otherwise. 
 
Finally, claimant argues that the order contained insufficient evidentiary 
findings.  Claimant, however, ignores that there was no evidence to weigh, and 
thus no findings to make.  Claimant skipped three exams, and the statute states that 
under these circumstances benefits must be suspended.  There is nothing more the 
order needed to say. 
 
The writ of mandamus is hereby denied. 
 
 
4
Writ denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
FOOTNOTE: 
1. 
Deyo, Walsh, Martin, Schoenfeld & Ramamurthy, A Controlled Trial of 
Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) and Exercise for Chronic 
Low Back Pain (1990), 322 New England J. of Medicine 1627.