Title: State ex rel. Seabolt v. State Highway Patrol Retirement System

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. Seabolt v. State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys., Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-1594.] 
 
 
 
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. 2019-OHIO-1594 
THE STATE EX REL. SEABOLT, APPELLANT, v. STATE HIGHWAY PATROL 
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Seabolt v. State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys., Slip 
Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-1594.] 
Mandamus—Writ sought to compel Ohio Highway Patrol Retirement System Board 
to vacate its finding that relator’s disability was not caused in the line of 
duty—Court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in denying writ of 
mandamus—Court of appeals’ judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2018-0695—Submitted January 29, 2019—Decided May 1, 2019.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 17AP-52,  
2018-Ohio-1377. 
________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Benjamin R. Seabolt, appeals the judgment of the Tenth 
District Court of Appeals denying his request for a writ of mandamus against 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
2
appellee, the State Highway Patrol Retirement System (“HPRS” or “the board”).  
We affirm. 
Factual and Procedural Background 
{¶ 2} Seabolt became a state trooper in 2007.  As a trooper, Seabolt 
regularly wore a service belt that weighed approximately 22 to 25 pounds.  
According to Seabolt, the service belt, also referred to as a “utility belt” or “gun 
belt,” included Seabolt’s firearm, ammunition, handcuffs, Taser, and flashlight. 
{¶ 3} Between January 2013 and April 2016, Seabolt was treated for lower-
back pain by four medical professionals.  Dr. Christian Gedeon, a chiropractor, 
recommended that Seabolt avoid wearing his service belt and concluded that 
Seabolt’s “pain [wa]s directly and casually related to his work.”  Dr. Jed Bell, an 
osteopath, opined that the weight of Seabolt’s service belt “more likely than not” 
caused “a disc bulge at the L5-S1 level * * * and associated low back and radiating 
leg pain.”  Dr. Ying Chen, a neurological spine surgeon, examined Seabolt and 
noted that his pain “began without any specific accident, injury, or fall, although he 
does wear a utility belt as a police officer and does frequent bending, lifting, and 
getting in and out of the car, which does seem to aggravate his symptoms.”  Finally, 
Dr. Christian Bonasso, a neurosurgeon, diagnosed Seabolt with an “L5-S1 disk 
space collapse and right-sided disk bulge” and recommended spinal surgery.  Dr. 
Bonasso concluded that the weight of Seabolt’s service belt and getting in and out 
of the cruiser “thousands of times over the course of his career” had caused 
Seabolt’s disc bulge and collapse. 
{¶ 4} In June 2016, Seabolt applied to HPRS for permanent and total 
disability-retirement benefits based on the diagnosis of the L5-S1 disc collapse and 
right-side disc bulge, as well as disintegration of L5-S1 vertebrae and arthritis.  
Seabolt claims an onset date of December 22, 2015. 
{¶ 5} In July 2016, Dr. Michael Griesser, an orthopedic surgeon, conducted 
an independent medical examination and diagnosed Seabolt with “L5-S1 disc 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
protrusion and degenerative disc disease at L5-S1.”  He agreed with Dr. Bonasso 
that Seabolt would likely need a surgical fusion and concluded that “Seabolt [wa]s 
totally and permanently disabled from working for the Ohio State Highway Patrol” 
and unable to perform his duties as a trooper.  Dr. Griesser observed no significant 
change between Seabolt’s 2013 MRI and his 2016 MRI. 
{¶ 6} HPRS’s medical advisor, Dr. David Tanner, reviewed Seabolt’s 
medical records and HRPS’s file and agreed with Dr. Griesser’s medical opinion 
that Seabolt was totally and permanently incapacitated and could no longer perform 
his job duties as a trooper.  However, Dr. Tanner maintained that “Seabolt’s 
conditions did not occur in the line of duty” and that they were “congenital and 
degenerative in nature and were pre-existing prior to the 12/22/15 date.”  Dr. Tanner 
also stated that he did not believe there was “any substantial aggravation of this 
pre-existing condition as the Lumbar MRI’s from 2/1/16 and 10/3/13 indicate[d] 
no significant change in comparison.” 
{¶ 7} The HPRS Health, Wellness, and Disability Committee (“the 
committee”) approved Seabolt’s disability but concluded that his condition did not 
occur “in the line of duty.”  Had the committee concluded that Seabolt was disabled 
“in the line of duty,” he would have received a higher monthly payment.  R.C. 
5505.18(B). 
{¶ 8} Seabolt requested reconsideration and presented supplemental 
medical evidence, including reports and progress notes from Drs. Gedeon, Bonasso, 
and Bell.  Dr. Chen’s progress notes were also attached to Seabolt’s reconsideration 
request. 
{¶ 9} Dr. Tanner reviewed Seabolt’s supplemental evidence and concluded 
that it was unpersuasive.  He noted Dr. Chen’s conclusion that Seabolt’s pain 
“ ‘began without any specific accident, injury or fall, although he does wear a utility 
belt as a police officer and does frequent bending, lifting and getting in and out of 
the car.’ ”  Dr. Tanner again concluded:  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
4
 
Given the review of the recent medical records submitted, 
diagnostic evaluation to indicate congenital structural conditions of 
Trooper Seabolt’s spine, diagnostic evaluation to indicated [sic] 
degenerative endplate disease, foraminal stenosis, degenerative disc 
disease, lack of diagnostic MRI changes to indicate “substantial 
aggravation” of a pre-existing condition (Lumbar MRI’s 2013 to 
2016) and the medical opinion that the probability of an essentially 
healthy 31 year old male having a service belt cause these 
degenerative changes within a 9 year window is medically 
improbable and thus not in the line of duty. 
     
{¶ 10} The committee voted to deny Seabolt’s motion for reconsideration 
and to confirm the original recommendation that Seabolt’s injury did not occur in 
the line of duty.  The board agreed and voted “[t]o confirm the original 
recommendation by the [c]ommittee of an off-duty disability.” 
{¶ 11} On January 20, 2017, Seabolt filed a complaint for a writ of 
mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals, seeking an order compelling 
HPRS to vacate its finding that his disability was “not in the line of duty” and to 
grant disability retirement “in the line of duty.” 
{¶ 12} The Tenth District referred the matter to a magistrate, who 
recommended denying the writ because Dr. Tanner’s reports “provide[d] the HPRS 
board with ‘sufficient evidence’ (or ‘some evidence’) to support its determination 
that relator is disabled but not in the line of duty.”  2018-Ohio-1377, ¶ 55.  The 
court of appeals adopted the magistrate’s findings of fact and conclusions of law 
and denied Seabolt’s request for a writ of mandamus.  Seabolt appealed. 
 
 
January Term, 2019 
 
5
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 13} The administration of HPRS is vested in the board.  R.C. 
5505.04(A)(1).  A member of the highway patrol “who becomes totally and 
permanently incapacitated for duty in the employ of the state highway patrol may 
be retired on disability by the board.”  R.C. 5505.18(A).  The disability may be 
either in the line of duty or not.  Ohio Adm.Code 5505-3-02(A)(4) through (5).  
When making the determination regarding retirement eligibility on the basis of a 
disability, the board “shall consider the written medical or psychological report, 
opinions, statements, and other competent evidence in making its determination.”  
R.C. 5505.18(A). 
{¶ 14} Mandamus is the appropriate remedy to correct an abuse of 
discretion by HPRS because the General Assembly did not provide a statutory right 
of appeal from the board’s determinations of disability benefits, see R.C. 
5505.18(A) (“The board shall determine whether the member qualifies for 
disability retirement and its decision shall be final”); State ex rel. Grein v. Ohio 
State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys., 116 Ohio St.3d 344, 2007-Ohio-6667, 879 
N.E.2d 195, ¶ 6 (mandamus is an appropriate remedy when no statutory right of 
appeal exists).  To obtain a writ of mandamus, Seabolt must establish, by clear and 
convincing evidence, that he has a clear legal right to the requested relief, that the 
board has a clear legal duty to provide it, and that Seabolt lacks an adequate remedy 
in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 
55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 15} To establish a clear legal right to the requested disability-retirement 
benefits and a clear legal duty on the part of HPRS to provide them, Seabolt must 
prove that the board abused its discretion when it decided that his disability did not 
occur in the line of duty.  Grein at ¶ 7.  An abuse of discretion exists when a decision 
is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.  State ex rel. Shisler v. Ohio Pub. 
Emps. Retirement Sys., 122 Ohio St.3d 148, 2009-Ohio-2522, 909 N.E.2d 610,  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
6
¶ 11.  Under this deferential standard, Seabolt cannot prevail so long as “some 
evidence” exists to support the board’s decision.  State ex rel. Nese v. State 
Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 103, 2013-Ohio-1777, 991 
N.E.2d 218, ¶ 26-27.  Only when the board’s “decision is not supported by any 
evidence will mandamus lie.”  (Emphasis sic.)  State ex rel. Woodman v. Ohio Pub. 
Emps. Retirement Sys., 144 Ohio St.3d 367, 2015-Ohio-3807, 43 N.E.3d 426, ¶ 17.  
And “the presence of contrary evidence is immaterial, so long as the ‘some 
evidence’ standard has been met.”  State ex rel. Am. Std., Inc. v. Boehler, 99 Ohio 
St.3d 39, 2003-Ohio-2457, 788 N.E.2d 1053, ¶ 29. 
{¶ 16} Ohio Adm.Code 5505-3-02(A)(4) defines “in the line of duty” to 
mean “an illness or injury that occurred during or resulted from the performance of 
official duties under the direct supervision of the state highway patrol.”  
Conversely, “not in the line of duty” means “an illness or injury that did not occur 
during or result from the performance of official duties under the direct supervision 
of the state highway patrol.”  Ohio Adm.Code 5505-3-02(A)(5).  Ohio Adm.Code 
5505-3-02(A)(5) establishes a rebuttable presumption that a disability did not occur 
“in the line of duty”: 
 
Unless the illness or injury meets the presumption criteria outlined 
in division (A) of section of section [sic] 5505.18 of the Revised 
Code [relating to chronic heart disease] or competent and credible 
evidence is submitted to HPRS, a disability condition is presumed 
to be not in the line of duty. 
 
{¶ 17} While the presumption may be rebutted with “competent, credible 
evidence,” Evans v. Natl. Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 22 Ohio St.3d 87, 92, 488 N.E.2d 
1247 (1986), the board “is solely responsible for assessing evidentiary weight and 
credibility, and a reviewing court should not independently reweigh the medical 
January Term, 2019 
 
7
evidence,” State ex rel. Woodman v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 144 Ohio 
St.3d 367, 2015-Ohio-3807, 43 N.E.3d 426 at ¶ 17. 
{¶ 18} Seabolt argues that he presented competent and credible evidence 
that his disability occurred in the line of duty and thus that he did rebut the 
presumption but that the board abused its discretion by disregarding the credible 
medical evidence and by arbitrarily concluding that his back pain did not occur in 
the line of duty.  As Seabolt notes, three medical professionals concluded that his 
condition occurred in the line of duty: Dr. Gedeon (chiropractor), Dr. Bell 
(osteopath), and Dr. Bonasso (neurosurgeon).  But Dr. Chen, a neurological spine 
surgeon, noted that Seabolt’s back pain began without any specific accident, injury, 
or fall.  Although Dr. Chen acknowledged that Seabolt’s service belt seemed to 
aggravate his symptoms, aggravating a condition is different from causing the 
condition in the first instance. 
{¶ 19} After reviewing this evidence, the board’s medical advisor, Dr. 
Tanner, concluded that Seabolt’s conditions did not occur in the line of duty 
because the conditions were congenital and degenerative and they had existed prior 
to the date of onset that Seabolt had stated in his disability application.  And after 
reviewing the new materials that Seabolt submitted with his application for 
reconsideration, Dr. Tanner concluded that it was “medically improbable” for the 
weight of a service belt to cause such changes to the spine of an “essentially 
healthy” young man within the span of nine years. 
{¶ 20} Despite this evidence, Seabolt challenges the board’s determination 
by arguing that Dr. Griesser, the orthopedic surgeon who conducted an independent 
medical examination, failed to comply with R.C. 5505.18(A)(3), which requires “a 
competent health-care professional * * * appointed by the board” to submit a 
written report that includes “[t]he cause of the member’s incapacity.”  Seabolt 
argues here—as he did in the court of appeals—that Dr. Griesser’s failure to 
determine whether Seabolt’s incapacity occurred in the line of duty was a failure to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
 
8
determine the cause of his incapacity.  The magistrate and the court of appeals 
disagreed with this argument, noting that Dr. Griesser identified the cause of 
Seabolt’s incapacity—L5-S1 disc protrusion and degenerative disc disease—and 
that Dr. Griesser was not required by R.C. 5508.18(A) or Ohio Adm.Code 5505-3-
02(D) to determine the “mechanism of the injury.”  2018-Ohio-1377 at ¶ 16, 74. 
{¶ 21} Regardless of whether Dr. Griesser was required to state that 
Seabolt’s injury happened in the line of duty or not in the line of duty, some 
evidence exists that Seabolt’s incapacity did not happen in the line of duty.  Dr. 
Tanner noted that because Seabolt’s MRIs showed little change between 2013 and 
2016, a “substantial aggravation of [Seabolt’s] pre-existing condition” had not 
occurred.  In addition, Dr. Chen concluded that Seabolt’s back pain began without 
any specific injury.  Because this evidence is sufficient to support the board’s 
decision that Seabolt’s injury was not in the line of duty, the board did not abuse its 
discretion.  See Grein, 116 Ohio St.3d 344, 2007-Ohio-6667, 879 N.E.2d 195, at  
¶ 11 (finding HPRS did not abuse its discretion because sufficient evidence existed 
to support its decision denying former state trooper disability-retirement benefits). 
{¶ 22} Seabolt also argues that the court of appeals erred when it adopted 
the magistrate’s analysis, which relied on a recently adopted provision in the 
Administrative Code, Ohio Adm.Code 5505-3-02(E), to find that Seabolt’s 
arguments did not have merit.  That provision requires that the board’s medical 
advisor (Dr. Tanner) review the medical evidence and make a report that includes 
whether the disability occurred in the line of duty.  The medical advisor’s report 
“shall be considered an independent medical opinion.”  Ohio Adm.Code 5505-3-
02(E)(3).  Seabolt argues that the magistrate’s reliance on Ohio Adm.Code 5505-
3-02(E) was misplaced because that provision, which became effective in May 
2017, was not in effect at the time of Seabolt’s medical examinations.  Indeed, 
regardless of the applicability of the new rule, Seabolt has failed to show that the 
January Term, 2019 
 
9
board abused its discretion when it found that his injury did not occur in the line of 
duty. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, 
and STEWART, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Haynes, Kessler, Myers & Postalakis, Inc., Marc E. Myers and Eric V. 
Hershberger, for appellant. 
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and John J. Danish and Mary Therese J. 
Bridge, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 
_________________