Title: State ex rel. Menz v. State Teachers Ret. Bd.

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. Menz v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2337.] 
  
 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-2337 
THE STATE EX REL. MENZ, APPELLEE, v. STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT 
BOARD, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Menz v. State Teachers Retirement Bd.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2337.] 
Mandamus—State Teachers Retirement System—R.C. 3307.62(C)—Applicant is 
eligible for permanent-disability retirement benefits when disability is 
presumed to be permanent for 12 months after application—Board abuses 
discretion in denying benefits when treating physician and independent 
physician stated that applicant’s condition would prevent return to work 
for at least a year—Remarks by physicians that granting disability can 
inhibit recovery and that disabling condition lacked objective cause may 
not be relied on to deny benefits. 
(No. 2014-1240—Submitted March 10, 2015—Decided June 17, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 13AP-586, 
2014-Ohio-2419. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
_____________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the Tenth District Court of Appeals’ decision in this 
appeal of a mandamus case.  Respondent-appellant, State Teachers Retirement 
Board (“STRB”), denied the application of relator-appellee, Jason Menz, for 
disability-retirement benefits because, they assert, he did not meet the criteria for 
permanent disability.  Menz filed an action in mandamus in the Tenth District, 
and that court held that STRB had abused its discretion because both the treating 
physician and the independent physician had acknowledged that Menz had a 
condition that would prevent his return to work for at least a year. 
{¶ 2} The only statutory criterion for an award of disability under the State 
Teachers Retirement System is that the applicant is “mentally or physically 
incapacitated for the performance of duty by a disabling condition, either 
permanent or presumed to be permanent for twelve continuous months following 
the filing of an application.”  R.C. 3307.62(C).  Menz’s treating physician 
specifically reported that Menz met this statutory requirement.  Despite some 
unfavorable comments and despite his recommendation that benefits be denied, 
the independent medical examiner also found that Menz qualified for benefits 
under R.C. 3307.62(C), i.e., he found that Menz would not be able to return to 
work for at least 12 months due to his medical condition.  The explicit reasons 
given by the independent examiner for recommending that benefits be denied 
were that granting them can be counterproductive in the management of chronic 
pain and that there was no objectively measurable neurological cause for the 
headaches.  These factors are not relevant to a determination that an applicant is 
eligible for benefits under R.C. 3307.62(C). The court of appeals was therefore 
correct that STRB abused its discretion in denying Menz disability benefits, and 
we affirm. 
 
 
January Term, 2015 
 
3
Facts 
Disability under the State Teachers Retirement System 
{¶ 3} Under the statutes governing disability retirement, members of the 
State Teachers Retirement System who can demonstrate that they are unable to 
perform their duties for at least 12 months because of a physical or mental 
condition are entitled to disability benefits.  R.C. 3307.62(C).  Once an 
application for benefits is submitted, an independent medical examiner will 
evaluate the applicant and prepare a report for STRB.  Id.  If the independent 
examiner determines that the applicant is disabled and STRB agrees, STRB will 
grant the application.  Ohio Adm.Code 3307:1-7-02(A)(3).  If, on the other hand, 
the independent examiner finds that the applicant is not disabled, the application 
and records will be reviewed by three independent physicians on a medical review 
board designated by STRB.  R.C. 3307.62(E); Ohio Adm.Code 3307:1-7-01(F) 
and 3307:1-7-02.  If the medical review board recommends denial, and STRB 
votes to deny disability, the applicant may appeal, and a hearing will be 
conducted upon the applicant’s request.  R.C. 3307.62(F); Ohio Adm.Code 
3307:1-7-06(B).  The applicant may appear with an attorney, Ohio Adm.Code 
3307:1-7-06(B)(3)(b), and STRB will review the application and evidence,  Ohio 
Adm.Code 3307:1-7-05(B).  STRB may require the medical review board to 
participate in the evaluation of the evidence and make a recommendation.  Ohio 
Adm.Code 3307:1-7-05(B)(5)(e).  STRB will then affirm, reverse, or modify its 
prior action.  Ohio Adm.Code 3307:1-7-05(B)(5)(f). 
Jason Menz’s application 
{¶ 4} Jason Menz was employed as an elementary-school principal in 
Cortland, Ohio.  During the 2010-2011 school year, he was absent 132 days due 
to personal illness.  On March 10, 2011, Menz’s administrative contract was not 
renewed, effective as of the end of the 2010-2011 school year. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 5} Menz applied for disability benefits on May 27, 2011; he stated in 
the application that his disability is debilitating migraine headaches.  His 
application included a May 6, 2011 report from Menz’s doctor, Robert G. 
Kaniecki, M.D.  Kaniecki is Director of the Headache Center and Assistant 
Professor of Neurology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.  Kaniecki 
had been treating Menz since late 2009 and diagnosed him with chronic migraine.  
His report stated that Menz’s major symptoms included unilateral and bilateral 
headaches, throbbing pain, and nausea.  Physical signs include vomiting, 
sensitivity to light and sound, and fatigue.  The report stated that Menz had 20 
headache days per month, 10 severe and 5 incapacitating.  The report also stated 
that Menz had taken medical leave to begin a more aggressive therapeutic 
program. The program was apparently unsuccessful and Menz continued to 
experience headaches. He approached Kaniecki about the possibility of applying 
for disability benefits, and Kaniecki concluded that Menz  
 
is presently unable to perform his job as an elementary school 
principal.  His migraine condition is expected to last at least an 
additional several years * * * and given the refractory nature of his 
headaches over the past 18 months, it is my expectation that he 
will continue to suffer intermittent disability from protracted 
migraine episodes.  Since the definition of “permanent” disability 
is listed as a condition extending beyond one year, I would certify 
him as permanently disabled. 
 
{¶ 6} Albert L. Berarducci Jr., M.D., a neurologist, performed an 
independent medical examination on behalf of STRB in August 2011.  In his 
report he noted that Menz had seen several neurologists. He described the history 
of Menz’s headaches, which started when Menz was a child, abated somewhat in 
January Term, 2015 
 
5
his teenage years, and began again in his twenties.  The profile indicated that one-
third of all his headaches are “maximal,” that the aching is sharp and throbbing, 
and that he often wakes up with a headache at peak intensity.  Berarducci noted 
that Menz’s sleep quality is fair to poor and that he has a headache on awakening 
almost every morning.  He also noted that “despite his debilitating headache” 
Menz is able to exercise every day. 
{¶ 7} Berarducci stated that Menz “has chronic daily headache that has 
been at the current level of severity * * * for the last eight years * * *.”  He made 
numerous statements critical of Menz’s previous treatment, concluding that “[a]ll 
of these elements [i.e., the psychobehavioral aspects of pain intolerance and the 
effect of stressors] need deeper and more flexible evaluation, if Mr. Menz is going 
to reach a self-sustaining, more effective program of headache management at any 
time in the near future.” After more comments on possible treatments, Berarducci 
stated that permanent-disability retirement for Menz would be counterproductive, 
“as it only frees him from the stresses and pressures of his job while not actually 
treating the underlying problem.  This headache syndrome could flower again in 
the future when [Menz is] faced by different stressors * * *.”  He also stated that 
“[f]rom a purely neurological perspective, I do not think that Mr. Menz should be 
declared permanently disabled from teaching.”  However, he stated that Menz’s 
“headache as currently described is sufficiently disabling that he likely will not 
tolerate an immediate return to his previous occupation without additional 
instruction in a different philosophy of headache pain management.”  Berarducci 
recommended that a status of temporary disability be recognized so that Menz 
could find a different treatment protocol. He indicated on the form provided that 
Menz’s application for permanent-disability retirement should be denied. 
STRB requires additional treatment 
{¶ 8} In response to Dr. Berarducci’s report, STRB required Menz to 
undergo additional treatment for six months before further action would be taken 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
on his application.  As suggested by Dr. Berarducci, Menz went to the Diamond 
Headache Clinic in Chicago.  While there, he underwent assessment and 
treatment, including different medications and other therapies, but still suffered 
debilitating headaches.  His discharge diagnosis was chronic migraine without 
aura, considered intractable. 
{¶ 9} Menz then provided to STRB documentation from the Diamond 
clinic, as well as an updated report from Dr. Kaniecki. That report stated that 
Menz continued to report an underlying daily headache with severe headaches 17 
days a month and incapacitating headaches 5 days a month.  He had shown no 
significant improvement despite various new treatments and medications since 
August 2011.  Kaniecki concluded that Menz had significant disability and was 
disabled from his position as school principal and schoolteacher. 
{¶ 10} STRB had Menz return to Dr. Berarducci for another evaluation.  
Dr. Berarducci received 60 pages of records of Menz’s various treatments.  He 
opined that there was no defined physical cause to explain Menz’s intractable 
headaches.  He suggested improved sleep quality would increase psychological 
resistance to pain and suggested that a reformulation of psychobehavioral 
diagnoses is necessary.  He discussed possible combinations of physical and 
psychobehavioral mechanisms that should be pursued.  He stated that “[f]rom a 
neurological perspective Mr. Menz has no measurable cause or reason to be 
permanently disabled” and that “[h]is inability to work resides only in his 
assertions [that] he cannot work * * *.”  However, he also stated that for Menz, 
“successful headache pain control [may] remain forever elusive,” that “Menz 
likely will not be returning to work with headache at the levels he describes 
today,” and that “[t]o that extent, he is ‘disabled’ * * *.”  But Dr. Berarducci 
stated that he feels that a declaration of permanent disability will “close off 
potential for future improvement” because in “some patients” such a declaration 
makes the situation worse. 
January Term, 2015 
 
7
Review by the medical review board 
{¶ 11} Three members of the STRB medical review board reviewed 
Menz’s application and recommended denial of his disability application.  One 
reviewer recognized that Menz “has a long history of chronic headache dating to 
age 8” and that the headaches “have become worse over the past decade to the 
point that he has stopped working * * *.”   He speculated that his headache 
“seems to best fit a chronic pain syndrome.”  The reviewer specifically stated that 
disability “can often be counterproductive in the management of chronic pain  
* * *.” 
{¶ 12} On September 21, 2012, STRB denied Menz’s application and 
advised him of his right to appeal. Menz timely appealed and submitted additional 
medical evidence of his condition. STRB submitted this evidence to Dr. 
Berarducci for comment.  As part of those comments, Dr. Berarducci reiterated 
that there is no objectively measurable physical origin for Menz’s pain complaints 
and that Menz’s complaints may be traced to somatoform disorder, a form of 
mental illness that can cause debilitating pain.  He stated that Menz “has not for at 
least the past 18 months and likely will not return to his previous position in 
teaching,” that the reasons lie “outside my personal expertise in the specialty of 
Neurology,” and that Menz is not neurologically disabled, but that “he will not 
return to work in the next 12 months and to that extent he fits the legal definition 
of ‘permanent’ disability from teaching.”  (Underlining sic.) 
{¶ 13} The review board again reviewed the application, generating 
reports by three physicians. One report again stated that “[d]isability can often be 
counterproductive in the management of chronic pain” and “can often create a 
barrier to optimal pain management.”  A second doctor commented that “I do not 
believe that Mr. Menz can function on a daily basis as a school teacher,” but 
suggested a psychiatric evaluation and/or a personal appearance by Menz before a 
final determination.  The third reviewer stated that Dr. Berarducci’s evaluation “is 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
a sufficient summary” of the reasons Menz should not be considered for disability 
retirement. 
{¶ 14} On March 14, 2013, STRB voted to deny Menz’s appeal. 
Mandamus case 
{¶ 15} Menz filed an action in mandamus in the court of appeals, and the 
magistrate assigned to the case concluded that STRB had not abused its discretion 
in following Dr. Berarducci’s recommendation to deny Menz’s application for 
disability retirement benefits.  2014-Ohio-2419, ¶ 71. 
{¶ 16} However, the court of appeals, on reviewing the magistrate’s 
decision and Menz’s objections to that decision, sustained the objections and 
granted a writ.  Specifically, the court of appeals found that both Menz’s treating 
physician and the independent physician had stated unequivocally that Menz met 
the legal definition of disability and that therefore STRB had abused its discretion 
in denying him disability benefits.  2014-Ohio-2419, ¶ 19-20, 25. 
{¶ 17} STRB appealed to this court. 
Analysis 
{¶ 18} A writ of mandamus “is an appropriate remedy by which claimants 
can obtain relief from an adverse determination concerning disability retirement 
benefits or other retirement decisions.” State ex rel. Pontillo v. Pub. Emps. 
Retirement Sys. Bd., 98 Ohio St.3d 500, 2003-Ohio-2120, 787 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 23; 
State ex rel. Moss v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol Retirement Sys., 97 Ohio St.3d 198, 
2002-Ohio-5806, 777 N.E.2d 259, ¶ 6; State ex rel. McMaster v. School Emps. 
Retirement Sys., 69 Ohio St.3d 130, 133, 630 N.E.2d 701 (1994).  A 
determination by STRB whether a person is entitled to disability-retirement 
benefits is reviewable in mandamus to correct an abuse of discretion. State ex rel. 
Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327, 2002-Ohio-2219, 
767 N.E.2d 719, ¶ 14. An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is 
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Id. Therefore, Menz brought the 
January Term, 2015 
 
9
correct action to challenge the STRB decision denying his application for 
disability benefits. 
{¶ 19} State Teachers Retirement System disability benefits are 
determined by R.C. 3307.62 and require medical examination by a disinterested 
physician: 
 
(C)  Medical examination of the member [who has applied 
for disability] shall be conducted by a competent, disinterested 
physician or physicians selected by the board to determine whether 
the member is mentally or physically incapacitated for the 
performance of duty by a disabling condition, either permanent or 
presumed to be permanent for twelve continuous months following 
the filing of an application. The disability must have occurred 
since last becoming a member, or it must have increased since last 
becoming a member to such an extent as to make the disability 
permanent or presumably permanent for twelve continuous months 
following the filing of an application. 
 
(Emphasis added.) In other words, the independent physician’s charge is to 
determine if the applicant meets the statutory criteria for permanent disability. 
{¶ 20} Simply put, the statute requires the independent physician to 
determine whether the applicant is mentally or physically incapacitated for work 
by a disabling condition for 12 continuous months after filing the application.  
The statute does not require the physician to identify a physical or psychological 
cause for the disability, to prescribe treatment or pass judgment on treatments 
already received, or to determine the effect that a declaration of disability might 
have on the applicant’s prospects for recovery. Any comment by the doctor 
regarding cause, past treatment, or possible future treatment or outcome is 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10
relevant only as it pertains to whether the disability actually exists, whether it 
disables the member from working, and whether the condition will last 12 months 
or more. 
{¶ 21} To be sure, STRB may require a benefit recipient to agree in 
writing to treatment recommended by the board’s physician and to submit records 
regarding the treatment.  Failing to do so can result in suspension or termination 
of the benefit.  R.C. 3307.62(G).  However, those requirements apply only to a 
disability benefit recipient, not to an applicant who has not yet received any 
benefits. 
{¶ 22} Here, both Menz’s physician, Dr. Kaniecki, and STRB’s 
independent physician, Dr. Berarducci, found that Menz had a disability that 
prevented him from working as a school principal for at least 12 months.  In the 
report submitted with Menz’s application, Dr. Kaniecki concluded that Menz “is 
presently unable to perform his job as an elementary school principal.  His 
migraine condition is expected to last at least an additional several years * * * 
[and] it is my expectation that he will continue to suffer intermittent disability 
from protracted migraine episodes.”  In a later report he opined that Menz was 
disabled from his position of school principal and schoolteacher and that his 
condition had shown no improvement despite various new treatments and 
medications since August 2011. 
{¶ 23} Dr. Berarducci stated in his first report that Menz’s “headache as 
currently described is sufficiently disabling that he likely will not tolerate an 
immediate return to his previous occupation without additional instruction in a 
different philosophy of headache pain management.”  Berarducci recommended 
that benefits for temporary disability be considered so that Menz could find a 
different treatment protocol.  In his second report, Dr. Berarducci found that 
Menz “likely will not be returning to work with headache at the levels he 
describes today.  To that extent he is ‘disabled.’ ”  He further found that for Menz, 
January Term, 2015 
 
11
“successful headache pain control [may] remain forever elusive.”  He 
recommended that disability benefits be denied because it might interfere with 
successful treatment, not because the headache condition does not exist or 
because it does not prevent Menz from working.  In his third report, Dr. 
Berarducci made the unequivocal statement that Menz “will not return to work in 
the next 12 months and to that extent he fits the legal definition of ‘permanent’ 
disability from teaching.”  (Underlining sic.) 
{¶ 24} In other words, despite his discussions of Menz’s past treatments, 
possible future treatments, the cause of his condition, and the effect a grant of 
disability might have on recovery, the independent examiner for STRB clearly 
and unequivocally concluded that Menz was sufficiently disabled by his 
headaches that he would not be able to return to work for at least 12 months. 
{¶ 25} The reports of the physicians comprising the medical review panel 
in this case, along with memos and correspondence between them, revealed a 
similar focus on the cause of Menz’s symptoms, the lack of objective findings, 
recommendations for new therapies, and the barriers to recovery posed by 
disability retirement, none of which are relevant factors under R.C. 3307.62(C).  
There seems to be a consensus that Menz suffers from severe chronic headaches, 
but none of the reports addressed whether that condition prevents him from 
returning to work within the next 12 months, the only relevant criterion. Whether 
granting disability might be counterproductive to treatment is not mentioned in 
the statute. 
{¶ 26} Thus, contrary to STRB’s first proposition of law, STRB’s decision 
was not based on “some evidence” that Menz lacked a disability as described in 
the statute; rather, it was based on the medical reports that recommended denial of 
benefits for reasons that cannot support denial. 
{¶ 27} STRB contends that Dr. Berarducci’s report conflicted with that of 
Dr. Kaniecki and that STRB has the discretion to consider conflicting reports and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12
choose which one to believe.  But the two physicians’ reports were not conflicting 
on the only point that mattered: Menz met the criterion for disability. 
{¶ 28} Nor does State ex rel. VanCleave v. School Emps. Retirement Sys., 
120 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-5377, 898 N.E.2d 33, cited by STRB, require a 
different result.  STRB cites VanCleave for the proposition that even for 
conditions that often lack objective findings, such as migraines, subjective 
complaints are not conclusive of disability, and objective evidence is still relevant 
to a determination of the severity of the condition.  Id. at ¶ 47. 
{¶ 29} However, VanCleave is distinguishable. The applicant in 
VanCleave attacked the independent physician’s report because, in her view, it 
discounted her claim of fibromyalgia for an improper reason: lack of objective 
medical evidence.  Our statement in that case about objective evidence and 
subjective complaints was meant to convey the notion that it is not always an 
abuse of discretion to deny benefits based on a report that emphasizes the lack of 
objective support for the claimed condition.  We did not intend to say that 
subjective conditions can never be the basis for awarding benefits.  In any event, 
Dr. Berarducci did not dismiss Menz’s complaints as unfounded due to lack of 
objective support.  Despite his skeptical and judgmental language, Dr. Berarducci 
acknowledged that Menz suffered from a pain condition so severe that he could 
not return to work as a school principal. 
{¶ 30} Similarly, State ex rel. Morgan v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of 
Ohio, 121 Ohio St. 3d 324, 2009-Ohio-591, 904 N.E.2d 506, ¶ 25, is also 
distinguishable.  There, we affirmed the denial of disability benefits despite the 
applicant’s claim that the independent medical examiner had improperly 
dismissed her chronic fatigue syndrome for lack of objective evidence.  Again, no 
such dismissal occurred here.  Dr. Berarducci recommends denial not because he 
does not believe that Menz has debilitating headaches, but because he thinks 
awarding disability will affect Menz’s treatment for his debilitating headaches. 
January Term, 2015 
 
13
{¶ 31} In its second proposition of law, STRB argues that Dr. 
Berarducci’s report constituted “some evidence” supporting the denial of benefits 
and that a court cannot reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for the 
board’s.  See State ex rel. Kolcinko v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 131 
Ohio St.3d 111, 2012-Ohio-46, 961 N.E.2d 178, ¶ 2 (an abuse of discretion occurs 
when the board enters an order that is not supported by “some evidence”).  But 
the court of appeals did not “reweigh” the evidence in concluding that STRB 
abused its discretion.  The court of appeals did not weigh the evidence at all.  It 
did not compare the credibility or persuasiveness of the reports.  It simply viewed 
the evidence in light of the statute and came to a conclusion that is objectively 
demonstrable: the examining physicians agreed that Menz met the statutory 
requirements for benefits.  STRB should have granted the application. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 32} The only statutory criterion for an award of disability-retirement 
benefits under the relevant statute is that the applicant is “mentally or physically 
incapacitated for the performance of duty by a disabling condition, either 
permanent or presumed to be permanent for twelve continuous months following 
the filing of an application.”  R.C. 3307.62(C).  In this case, Menz’s treating 
physician and the independent medical examiner both explicitly acknowledged 
that Menz suffers from chronic migraines debilitating enough to prevent him 
working as a school principal for at least 12 months.  None of the reports of the 
members of the medical review board addressed this criterion in recommending 
denial of benefits.  Their reasons for denying disability are limited to conclusory 
agreement with Dr. Berarducci’s recommendation of denial, the lack of a 
diagnosed cause for the headaches, and the possibility that disability benefits will 
jeopardize the success of possible future treatments; these are not criteria in the 
statute that would permit STRB to deny Menz disability benefits for his condition. 
Judgment affirmed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
14
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
Deitz Law Office, L.L.C., and James M. Deitz, for appellee. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Lydia Arko, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellant. 
_____________________