Title: State ex rel. Kish v. Kroger 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. Kish v. Kroger Co., Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1931.] 
 
 
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-1931 
THE STATE EX REL. KISH, APPELLANT, v. KROGER COMPANY ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Kish v. Kroger Co.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2013-Ohio-1931.] 
Workers’ compensation—Doctor’s addenda to original report constituted some 
evidence to support Industrial Commission’s decision—Appellate court’s 
denial of writ of mandamus affirmed. 
(No. 2011-1990—Submitted April 9, 2013—Decided May 14, 2013.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 10AP-882, 2011-Ohio-5766. 
____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Becky Kish, appeals the judgment of the court of 
appeals denying her request for a writ of mandamus to require appellee the 
Industrial Commission to award her compensation pursuant to R.C. 4123.57(B) 
for the loss of use of her left arm. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} The court of appeals determined that the reports of Dr. David C. 
Randolph dated June 21 and October 2, 2009, issued as addenda to his original 
report of March 5, 2009, constituted some evidence in support of the 
commission’s decision denying Kish’s request for compensation for the loss of 
use of her left arm.  Thus, the court concluded that the commission had not 
abused its discretion. 
{¶ 3} For the reasons that follow, we agree, and we therefore affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals denying the writ of mandamus. 
{¶ 4} Kish was working as a clerk for appellee Kroger Company on 
January 3, 1990, when she slipped and fell on a wet floor, injuring her left ankle.  
Since then, she has suffered several other injuries that have been attributed to her 
underlying ankle injury.  By 2009, Kish’s workers’ compensation claim had been 
allowed for the following conditions:  left ankle injury, reflex sympathetic 
dystrophy (“RSD”), depression, fracture/dislocation left elbow with compartment 
syndrome, and loss of use of the left leg.  Also by 2009, she had had multiple 
surgeries and was taking approximately 14 medications. 
{¶ 5} On February 23, 2009, at the request of Kroger, Dr. David C. 
Randolph examined Kish to determine whether further treatment was necessary 
and appropriate for her injury and other allowed conditions.  In a March 5, 2009 
report, Dr. Randolph identified and accepted the following allowed conditions:  
“left lower leg injury; depressive disorder; RSD; fracture left lower humerus, 
closed; [and] early complications of trauma.”  His report noted Kish’s current 
complaints and the medical records he had reviewed.  It also detailed his physical 
examination of Kish.  Dr. Randolph concluded that Kish required no further 
medical treatment for her 1990 industrial injury and other allowed conditions in 
her claim and that her current medications were neither necessary nor appropriate 
for her allowed conditions. 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
{¶ 6} As a result, Kroger notified Kish that Kroger would no longer pay 
for her treatment or medications. 
{¶ 7} On March 18, 2009, Kish filed a motion asking the commission to 
authorize continued treatment and medications, and a week later, she filed a 
motion for scheduled compensation for the loss of use of her left arm.  She 
submitted a report from Dr. Douglas Gula in support of both motions.  Dr. Gula 
had examined Kish on October 3, 2008, to evaluate her left arm.  In a report dated 
March 25, 2009, he concluded that Kish had “suffered serious injury to the left 
upper extremity” and that she demonstrated the loss of use “based upon 
combination of finger, hand, wrist, elbow and shoulder function.”  He also 
concluded that she demonstrated “significant signs of complex regional pain 
syndrome” related to her left arm. 
{¶ 8} In April 2009, a district hearing officer authorized her continued 
treatment and medications based on the reports from Dr. Gula and another doctor. 
{¶ 9} On June 21, 2009, Dr. Randolph wrote an addendum to his original 
report to specifically address the alleged loss of use of Kish’s left arm.  According 
to Dr. Randolph, there was no objective evidence to support Kish’s claim and Dr. 
Gula’s opinion was invalid because he had merely relied on her self-reporting of 
pain and loss of function and had not made any objective findings to support the 
claims. 
{¶ 10} On July 16, 2009, Dr. Gula responded to Dr. Randolph’s 
criticisms.  He reiterated that Kish “does demonstrate a complete loss of use in the 
sense of the ability to function.” 
{¶ 11} In August 2009, a district hearing officer denied Kish’s motion for 
compensation for the loss of use of her arm based on Dr. Randolph’s June 
addendum.  The hearing officer specifically rejected Dr. Gula’s opinion. 
{¶ 12} Kish appealed, and each doctor responded in writing to the hearing 
officer’s decision.  On September 11, 2009, Dr. Gula clarified that Kish’s loss of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
use of her left arm was based upon the allowed condition of fracture dislocation 
left elbow, with associated compartment syndrome.  On October 2, 2009, Dr. 
Randolph repeated his opinion that Kish did not suffer a total loss of use of her 
left arm and that Dr. Gula’s opinion was not supported by objective evidence. 
{¶ 13} A staff hearing officer denied the motion based on Dr. Randolph’s 
June and October addenda.  The hearing officer noted that Dr. Randolph had 
“opined that there are no objective abnormalities with respect to [Kish’s] left 
upper extremity which would support a total loss of use. * * * Dr. Randolph 
observed [Kish] during his examination and noted that when [she] was unaware of 
being observed her left upper extremity function appeared to be approaching 
normal.” 
{¶ 14} The commission denied Kish’s further appeal. 
{¶ 15} Kish filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District 
Court of Appeals alleging that the commission’s decision constituted an abuse of 
discretion.  The court of appeals concluded, however, that Dr. Randolph’s 
addenda constituted some evidence upon which the commission could rely to 
support its decision denying Kish’s claim for the loss of use of her left arm.  Thus, 
the appellate court determined that the commission had not abused its discretion 
and denied the writ. 
{¶ 16} This cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right. 
{¶ 17} The dispositive issue is whether the second and third reports of Dr. 
Randolph—issued as addenda to his original report of March 5, 2009—
constituted some evidence to support the commission’s decision denying Kish’s 
motion for a scheduled loss-of-use award. 
{¶ 18} First, Kish argues that Randolph’s addenda could not be 
considered some evidence to support the commission’s decision, because Dr. 
Randolph had not considered all the allowed conditions in his first report, in 
particular, the compartment syndrome associated with Kish’s left arm. 
January Term, 2013 
5 
 
{¶ 19} An examining physician must consider the allowed conditions of 
the claim in order to render an opinion that will constitute some evidence upon 
which the commission can rely.  State ex rel. Richardson v. Quarto Mining Co., 
73 Ohio St.3d 358, 652 N.E.2d 1027 (1995).  In his original report, Dr. Randolph 
listed Kish’s allowed injuries related to her left arm as “fracture left lower 
humerus, closed” and “early complications of trauma,” but he did not expressly 
refer to Kish’s allowed condition as “fracture/dislocation left elbow with 
compartment syndrome.”  Thus, Kish argues that Dr. Randolph did not consider 
the compartment-syndrome component and his opinion cannot support the 
commission’s decision. 
{¶ 20} The court of appeals noted that Dr. Randolph acknowledged in his 
report that Kish told him that she had developed compartment syndrome in her 
left arm.  In addition, the appellate court noted that “compartment syndrome” is a 
subcategory of “early complications of trauma.”  Thus, when Dr. Randolph 
considered “early complications of trauma,” he considered compartment 
syndrome.  Finally, the appellate court reasoned that Dr. Randolph would also 
have considered compartment syndrome when he responded to Dr. Gula’s opinion 
that referenced the condition. 
{¶ 21} There is no dispute that Dr. Randolph examined Kish’s left arm 
and provided clinical findings in support of his opinion.  He also considered early 
complications of trauma, of which compartment syndrome is a subcategory, 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, International Classification of 
Diseases 686-687 (9th Ed.2011), and he addressed Dr. Gula’s comments on the 
condition.  Consequently, Kish’s argument that Randolph did not consider 
compartment syndrome lacks merit. 
{¶ 22} Next, Kish contends that the commission implicitly rejected Dr. 
Randolph’s initial report in its order authorizing the continuation of treatment and 
medications, so his addenda must likewise be rejected, in accordance with State 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
ex rel. Zamora v. Indus. Comm., 45 Ohio St.3d 17, 19, 543 N.E.2d 87 (1989) (it 
would be inconsistent for the commission to reject a medical report at one level, 
for whatever reason, and rely on it at another). 
{¶ 23} As the court of appeals concluded, the commission did not rely on 
Dr. Randolph’s March 2009 report in its order denying the loss-of-use motion but 
instead relied on his later addenda, so there was no violation of Zamora.  
Furthermore, although the commission had implicitly rejected Dr. Randolph’s 
conclusion regarding the continuation of medical treatment, it did not reject the 
clinical findings from his initial examination.  His later addenda relied on those 
clinical findings, but addressed a different issue—specifically, the loss of use of 
the left arm.  It was within the commission’s discretion to rely on those reports.  
State ex rel. Crocker v. Indus. Comm., 111 Ohio St.3d 202, 2006-Ohio-5483, 855 
N.E.2d 848, ¶ 16 (Zamora does not mean that the commission can never rely on a 
report from a doctor whose opinion has been rejected.  “What the commission 
cannot do is accept the same doctor’s opinion on one matter that it previously 
rejected”).  See also State ex rel. Value City Dept. Stores v. Indus. Comm., 97 
Ohio St.3d 187, 2002-Ohio-5810, 777 N.E.2d 249, ¶ 22. 
{¶ 24} Finally, Kish contends that Dr. Randolph fabricated additional 
observations and findings in his October 2, 2009 addendum to support his 
opinion.  Kish maintains that Dr. Randolph’s statement that her left arm was 
“quite functional” and “appear[ed] to be approaching normal” when she was 
unaware of being observed, was contrary to findings in his original report.  We 
find that the record does not contain evidence to support Kish’s allegation that the 
doctor fabricated this or any other statement.  Without more, we find that Kish’s 
argument is merely speculative. 
{¶ 25} Because the June and October 2009 addenda of Dr. Randolph 
constituted some evidence to support the commission’s decision to deny Kish’s 
January Term, 2013 
7 
 
request for compensation for the loss of use of her left arm, the commission did 
not abuse its discretion and the court of appeals properly denied the writ. 
{¶ 26} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Law Offices of James A. Whittaker, L.L.C., Laura J. Murphy, and James 
A. Whittaker, for appellant. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Kevin J. Reis, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
Beirne & Wirthlin Co., L.P.A., and J. Stephen Wirthlin, for appellee 
Kroger Company. 
________________________