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

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Scouler v. Indus. Comm., 119 Ohio St.3d 276, 2008-Ohio-3915.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. SCOULER, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 
OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Scouler v. Indus. Comm., 
119 Ohio St.3d 276, 2008-Ohio-3915.] 
Workers’ compensation — Evidence — Medical proof of disability — When 
commission order denying compensation purports to discuss all evidence 
but omits document that supports disability, document is presumed to have 
been overlooked — Writ granted ordering reconsideration. 
(No. 2007-1212 – Submitted May 6, 2008 – Decided August 12, 2008.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 06AP-325, 2007-Ohio-2468. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio denied appellant, Dennis 
C. Scouler, temporary total disability compensation after January 27, 2005, on 
grounds that medical evidence of his disability was lacking and that he voluntarily 
abandoned his employment.  The court of appeals, through its magistrate, found 
significant problems with the commission’s voluntary-abandonment analysis and 
ordered further consideration.  None of the litigants oppose that decision.  The 
parties do, however, differ on the question of medical proof of disability, and that 
is the issue now before us. 
{¶ 2} Scouler was injured while working for his self-insured employer, 
appellee Big Lots Stores, Inc., in July 2004.  After Big Lots certified that 
Scouler’s claim for a cervical strain and sprain was valid, it began paying for 
treatment.  Scouler’s treatment initially allowed him to remain at his former 
position of employment.  But persistent symptoms eventually prompted Dr. Paul 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
R. Gutheil, Scouler’s attending physician, to impose physical restrictions on him 
that prevented a return to his former position of employment.  Those restrictions 
remained in place for the balance of the period in controversy. 
{¶ 3} In October 2004, Big Lots offered Scouler a light-duty job 
consistent with his physical restrictions, and Scouler returned immediately.  He 
continued at that light-duty job until December 26, 2004, when he was arrested 
for a domestic dispute.  In the wake of that incident, Mrs. Scouler reported to Big 
Lots that her husband had fabricated the claim to cover an injury that occurred at 
home, not at work.  She later recanted, but for the next several months, claim 
activity essentially stopped as Big Lots withdrew its claim certification and 
sought to have the claim disallowed. 
{¶ 4} On September 9, 2005, the commission allowed the claim for 
cervical strain and sprain, concluding that it was legitimate.  Scouler then resumed 
treatment with Dr. Gutheil.  Shortly thereafter, Scouler applied for temporary total 
disability compensation retroactive to January 27, 2005.  In addition to several C-
84 request-for-benefits forms, he also submitted an October 7, 2005 questionnaire 
completed by Dr. Gutheil.  On it, Dr. Gutheil responded yes to these two 
inquiries: 
{¶ 5} “At the time of your evaluation of Mr. Scouler on February 4, 
2005, did you feel that he still remained disabled from his original position of 
employment as a fork lift operator?   
{¶ 6} “Based on a reasonable medical probability, do you feel that his 
work restrictions related to this injury have been in effect limiting him in his 
employment capabilities continuously for the period of October 21, 2004 through 
the present time?” 
{¶ 7} During the commission hearings, the parties disputed the reason 
why Scouler had not received treatment during the time that Big Lots had sought 
to withdraw its claim certification and the effect of the lack of contemporaneous 
January Term, 2008 
3 
evidence of Scouler’s disability. Big Lots argued that the lack of treatment 
showed that Scouler’s condition was not severe enough to be disabling.  Scouler 
responded that Big Lots had refused to authorize any treatments due to its new 
belief that his claim was fraudulent. A staff hearing officer denied compensation: 
{¶ 8} “Temporary total disability compensation is firstly denied based on 
the insufficiency of the medical evidence.  The C-84  submitted in support of this 
motion is from Dr. Gutheil, dated 10/04/2005, and covering a temporary total 
disability request from 09/20/2005 to 11/18/2005 * * *.  Therefore, there is no C-
84 to cover the period of time from 01/27/2005 to 09/19/2005.  The injured 
worker submits that the medical release of Dr. Gutheil dated 12/06/2004 and 
indicating work ability with restrictions is sufficient for the reason that this 
medical release is indicative of an inability to return to the injured worker[’s] 
former position of employment. 
{¶ 9} “Dr. Gutheil next examined the injured worker on 09/20/2005.  
The injured worker submitted that there was no treatment in the interim, between 
the medical release of Dr. Gutheil and the 09/20/2005 office visit because the self-
insured employer refused to authorize any treatment.  The Staff Hearing Officer 
was persuaded by the employer’s argument that there was no request for treatment 
over this time period.  * * * The evidence on file indicates that the injured worker 
had an office visit on 03/03/2005 with Dr. Mullin, which office visit referred to a 
non-allowed cervical disc condition as does the C-84 form. * * * 
{¶ 10} “Two EMGs on file were both normal and therefore the injured 
worker has not met his burden of proof that he had any need for treatment over 
this time period, or that he indeed had any treatment over this period of temporary 
total disability compensation requested from 01/27/2005. 
{¶ 11} “ * * * 
{¶ 12} “All relevant evidence was reviewed and considered.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 13} Scouler filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in 
denying compensation.  The court of appeals agreed in part.  Speaking through its 
magistrate, the court held that the commission did not abuse its discretion in 
denying the specific closed period of temporary total disability compensation 
requested for lack of medical evidence,. 
{¶ 14} Scouler now appeals to this court as of right. 
{¶ 15} Two facets of the commission’s medical analysis concern us.  The 
first is the staff hearing officer’s statement that one of the C-84s of record referred 
to a nonallowed condition.  This is not borne out by our review and is of concern 
because it erroneously suggests that Scouler’s own doctor attributed disability, in 
part, to a nonallowed condition, which he did not do.  The second concern relates 
to the commission’s lack of reference to Dr. Gutheil’s questionnaire.  Under most 
circumstances, such an omission would be inconsequential.  As appellees 
correctly indicate, the commission need only enumerate the evidence relied upon 
to reach its decision.  State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc. (1983), 6 
Ohio St.3d 481, 483-484, 6 OBR 531, 453 N.E.2d 721. The commission is not 
required to list or cite evidence that has been considered and rejected or explain 
why certain evidence was deemed unpersuasive.  State ex rel. DeMint v. Indus. 
Comm. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 19, 20, 550 N.E.2d 174. 
{¶ 16} There is, however, an important exception to this general rule.  
When the commission, for whatever reason, elects to list all evidence before it, 
but omits a particular document from that recitation, we will presume that the 
document was overlooked.  State ex rel. Fultz v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 69 Ohio 
St.3d 327, 329, 631 N.E.2d 1057.  If that document could influence the outcome 
of the matter in question, we will return the matter to the commission for further 
consideration.  Id. 
January Term, 2008 
5 
{¶ 17} The order now at issue does not contain an actual itemized list of 
the evidence as Fultz did.  Nevertheless, the order states, “All relevant evidence 
was reviewed and considered.”  In addition, the order did discuss all of the 
evidence presented except for Dr. Gutheil’s questionnaire.  We consider this to be 
significant, because the tenor of the commission’s order is that there is no 
evidence that certifies disability before September 20, 2005. But Dr. Gutheil’s 
responses do allege disability prior to that date, so it is important that the 
commission also consider that document. 
{¶ 18} Accordingly, that portion of the court of appeals’ judgment that 
upheld the commission’s evidentiary determination is hereby reversed, and the 
commission is ordered to reconsider its order on that issue. 
Judgment reversed 
and writ granted. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
___________________ 
Larrimer & Larrimer and Thomas L. Reitz, for appellant. 
Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn, L.P.A., William J. Barath, and Jennifer M. 
McDaniel, for appellee Big Lots Stores, Inc. 
Nancy Hardin Rogers, Attorney General, and Sandra E. Pinkerton, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
___________________