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

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Spohn v. Indus. Comm., 115 Ohio St.3d 329, 2007-Ohio-5027.] 
 
 
 
THE  STATE EX REL. SPOHN, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL  
COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Spohn v. Indus. Comm., 
 115 Ohio St.3d 329, 2007-Ohio-5027.] 
Workers’ compensation – Permanent total disability – Termination due to 
improvement in allowed conditions – Commission’s finding that 
claimant’s medical improvement qualified him for sedentary work was not 
abuse of discretion, as evidence in file supported finding that claimant had 
become capable of sustained remunerative employment. 
(No. 2005-1358 – Submitted May 1, 2007 – Decided October 3, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 04AP-626, 2005-Ohio-2800. 
__________________ 
LANZINGER, J. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal as of right after a claimant’s permanent total 
disability compensation was terminated in a workers’ compensation matter.  We 
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Case Background 
{¶ 2} In 1991, after years of industrial back problems, appellant, Steven 
Spohn, was awarded permanent total disability compensation.  No one then 
disputed the severity of his condition.  Years later, however, Spohn’s employer, 
appellee Seaway Food Town, Inc., alleging that recent medical treatment had 
significantly improved Spohn’s condition, persuaded appellee Industrial 
Commission of Ohio to reopen the matter. Permanent total disability 
compensation was terminated in 2000.  Spohn now contests the commission’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
continuing jurisdiction to reopen the issue and its subsequent determination that 
he is no longer permanently and totally disabled. 
{¶ 3} Spohn had five separate industrial injuries while working at 
Seaway. The most severe occurred in 1978 and 1985 and involved his lower back.  
Over the years, he had several surgeries, with little improvement.  Spohn never 
returned to work after his 1985 injury, and in 1986, his last workers’ 
compensation claim was additionally allowed for “major depression, single 
episode.” 
{¶ 4} Spohn 
eventually 
applied 
for 
permanent 
total 
disability 
compensation.  That application generated numerous medical reports.  Examiners 
placed restrictions on his walking, climbing, lifting, stooping, bending, and 
twisting.  Drs. Gerald S. Steiman and S.S. Purewal limited Spohn to sedentary 
employment. He was also examined by three psychologists, Drs. William A. 
Seman, Robert A. Muehleisen, and Robert A. MacGuffie.  They all concluded 
that  (1) Spohn has nonallowed psychological conditions that contribute heavily to 
his overall emotional state, (2) further psychiatric intervention will yield no 
improvement, and (3) Spohn’s overall psychiatric condition precludes any 
sustained remunerative employment. 
{¶ 5} All of these reports were considered in a combined-effects review 
on February 1, 1990, by Dr. James E. Mann, who concluded:  “The claimant has a 
whole man combined effects impairment of 70%.  The claimant is not able to 
return to his former position of employment.  The condition is permanent.  The 
claimant, in my opinion, could engage in some forms of sustained remunerative 
employment, but there would be significant restrictions.  The claimant would 
have to be restricted to sedentary employment requiring lifting of no more than 10 
or 15 lbs. and which would not require him to bend, lift, twist, or otherwise stress 
his back.  He also could not be expected to perform employment demanding a 
great deal of concentration and attention or the required and intense and 
January Term, 2007 
3 
demanding interaction with supervisors, fellow workers, or the public in general.  
In my opinion rehabilitation would not help to return the claimant to the forms of 
remunerative employment that he could perform within the above restrictions.” 
{¶ 6} The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s Rehabilitation Division 
concurred in Dr. Mann’s rehabilitation assessment:   
{¶ 7} “Based on Vocational Screening results, prognosis for future 
vocational rehabilitation services appears to be poor at this time.  Significant 
barriers in returning to work include:  work history, physical capacities, aerobic 
conditioning, proper use of medications, pain behaviors, monetary incentives, 
attitude toward participation in rehabilitation programming, initiative during 
vocational screening, work pacing, and surgical history and emotional history. 
{¶ 8} “Rehabilitation services were discussed and the client expressed no 
interest in getting involved.  The client said, ‘the only way I will come back down 
here is in a pine box.’ ”   
{¶ 9} The commission granted permanent total disability benefits on 
June 4, 1991, writing: “The claimant is approximately 35 years of age, with a high 
school education and one semester of computer training at Owens Technical 
College.  The claimant has work experience as a warehouseman.  The claimant 
has undergone back surgeries in 1978, 1979 and 1981.  Dr. Mann in his 02/01/90 
report states the claimant would be limited to very sedentary work, with severe 
restrictions in bending, lifting or twisting.  Dr. MacGuffie in a 04/19/90 report 
states the claimant is PTD from a vocational perspective.  Therefore, PTD is 
granted.” 
{¶ 10} Throughout the 1990s, Spohn’s back pain continued, and more 
surgery followed.  In 1996, however, he began receiving epidural steroid 
injections in his back, which resulted in significant pain reduction over the next 
15 months.  In 1998, Seaway hired investigators to monitor Spohn’s activities.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
The investigators obtained the master list of members from a local country club, 
which showed Spohn playing 95 rounds of golf that year. 
{¶ 11} On December 6, 1999, Seaway sought to have Spohn medically 
examined by a doctor of its choice pursuant to R.C. 4123.651.  A district hearing 
officer granted that request on January 7, 2000, and stated that “failure to appeal 
[sic, appear] will result in suspension [of compensation] under 4123.651(C).”  
Spohn did not appeal that order. 
{¶ 12} On February 14, 2000, Spohn was seen by Dr. Michael L. Koltz.  
Dr. Koltz found no objective evidence to corroborate Spohn’s complaints of back 
pain, nor did he find any evidence of lumbar instability.  He concluded:  “Mr. 
Spohn is clearly fixated on the stressors of his life.  With regard to the conditions 
allowed in this claim, Mr. Spohn has satisfactor[ily] recovered to the point where 
he is functional and for this reason, I believe that he is not permanently and totally 
disabled.  It is fascinating to note that when Mr. Spohn is distracted from his 
complaints of back and leg pains, he moves about freely in a very non-guarded, 
painless posture.  It is further fascinating to note that the Infoquest surveillance 
report demonstrates that Mr. Spohn is very functional and he did not appear to 
have any problems walking or swinging a golf club.  He moves about freely, 
bending at the waist, picking up golf balls, tees and so forth.  The mid-back and 
low back biomechanics of golf require significant rotation and flexion of the back.  
It is clear that Mr. Spohn is able to perform these functions nicely.  This was also 
further demonstrated in my medical examination today.  For this reason, I clearly 
believe that Mr. Spohn has a very good functional range of motion of the back 
and * * * clearly has no permanent total disability.”  (Emphasis sic.) 
{¶ 13} Dr. Daniel J. Kuna conducted the psychological examination and 
identified Spohn’s primary conditions as pathological gambling, personality 
disorder, and adjustment disorder with anxiety, none of which are allowed in the 
claim.  He opined that the sole allowed condition of “major depression, single 
January Term, 2007 
5 
episode” was in remission and did not render Spohn permanently and totally 
disabled. 
{¶ 14} Spohn did not submit any updated medical evidence regarding his 
back condition or any additional vocational evidence.  He did submit a report 
from treating psychiatrist Dr. Lurley J. Archambeau, who opined that Spohn 
remained incapable of sustained remunerative work. 
{¶ 15} A staff hearing officer issued a lengthy order on October 3, 2000.  
The hearing officer first determined that there was continuing jurisdiction to 
reopen the issue of Spohn’s eligibility for permanent total disability benefits, 
finding that the improvement Spohn experienced after his epidural injections 
constituted a new and changed circumstance.  The hearing officer then considered 
the merits of Spohn’s eligibility from physical, psychiatric, and vocational 
standpoints.  The staff hearing officer relied on Dr. Koltz’s report and found that 
Spohn was physically capable of “at least sedentary sustained remunerative 
employment.”  Regarding psychological factors, the hearing officer relied on Dr. 
Kuna’s report and concluded that based solely on the allowed conditions, Spohn 
was not incapable of sustained remunerative work. 
{¶ 16} On the vocational component, the staff hearing officer observed:  
{¶ 17} “The claimant has a home computer.  The claimant had computer 
training at Owens Technical College in 1988.  The claimant testified at hearing 
that he uses his home computer to access internet sites, particularly for video 
games and sweepstakes. 
{¶ 18} “The claimant testified that he has difficulty reading, remembering 
and concentrating.  However, the Staff Hearing Officer finds this unpersuasive 
and contra-indicated by his organized and systematic approach to internet 
gambling and sweepstakes.  The claimant also testified about bird watching and 
keeping records on sightings.  This also requires concentration, organization, 
reading and record keeping skills.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 19} The staff hearing officer thus concluded:  “[T]he claimant’s 
vocational factors would also not preclude the claimant from performing 
sustained remunerative employment.  The claimant is currently only 44 years old, 
which is a younger individual by definition in OAC 4121-3-34.  The claimant is a 
high school graduate with additional college training in computers.  The claimant 
has demonstrated computer skills in his activities of daily living.  The claimant is 
clearly able to read, write and perform basic math, again established by his 
activities of daily living.  There is no evidence of any learning disability which 
would preclude the claimant from re-training into areas of entry level sedentary 
work.  These are all positive vocational factors.” (Emphasis sic.) 
{¶ 20} Permanent 
total 
disability 
compensation 
was, 
therefore, 
terminated. 
{¶ 21} Spohn filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission lacked both jurisdiction and 
evidentiary support to terminate permanent total disability compensation.  The 
court of appeals disagreed and denied the writ, prompting Spohn’s appeal as of 
right. 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 22} Spohn’s first challenge is procedural.  He asserts that the 
commission lacked continuing jurisdiction to reopen the issue of entitlement to 
permanent total disability compensation, focusing primarily on the October 3, 
2000 staff hearing officer’s order.  This focus is misplaced, as it was not the staff 
hearing officer’s order but the January 7, 2000 order of the district hearing officer 
that reopened the issue.  “[A]ny medical examination going to the question of 
extent of disability inherently reopens the permanent total disability issue.” State 
ex rel. Smothers v. Mihm (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 566, 568, 634 N.E.2d 1017.  
Consequently, the district hearing officer’s command to appear at Seaway’s 
medical examination was a proper exercise of continuing jurisdiction.  Although 
January Term, 2007 
7 
this is the order to which Spohn should be objecting, he cannot now do so, 
because he did not appeal that order administratively. 
{¶ 23} Spohn, however, argues that the district hearing officer lacked 
jurisdiction over permanent total disability issues, and, therefore, the termination 
order is void ab initio.  Because of the lack of jurisdiction, Spohn claims that his 
failure to appeal is meaningless.  We reject this argument, as did the court of 
appeals.  The court of appeals, through its magistrate, held that the district hearing 
officer’s lack of jurisdiction to order Spohn’s attendance at a permanent total 
disability exam was mooted by Spohn’s attendance.  The magistrate apparently 
reasoned that by not refusing to submit to the examination, Spohn consented to 
the district hearing officer’s jurisdiction.  When coupled with the failure to appeal 
this issue, this issue was deemed moot by the court of appeals. 
{¶ 24} Part of the court’s reasoning is tenuous, because nonattendance at 
the examination was not an option. The district hearing officer directed that 
compensation would be suspended if Spohn did not appear.  An appeal, however, 
was an option.  Far from being a vain act, an appeal would have preserved 
Spohn’s right to contest the district hearing officer’s invocation of continuing 
jurisdiction.  Accordingly, we hold that the issue of continuing jurisdiction is 
moot. 
{¶ 25} Spohn next claims that the commission violated his due process 
rights when it failed to have him examined by a commission doctor.  This position 
implies that the commission could not address Spohn’s continuing eligibility for 
permanent total disability compensation with reports only from Seaway’s doctors. 
{¶ 26} This contention is meritless.  Spohn could have submitted his own 
medical or vocational evidence but chose not to do so.  There is, moreover, no 
requirement that the commission conduct its own examination in cases involving 
termination of compensation. Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-34 mandates a commission 
medical exam when the initial permanent total disability application is filed but 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
says nothing about motions to terminate.  Accordingly, we find this argument 
unpersuasive. 
{¶ 27} Spohn’s last challenge to the commission’s order is evidentiary.  
We begin by holding that none of Spohn’s objections to the Koltz and Kuna 
reports have merit, and accordingly we refuse his request to have those reports 
removed from consideration.  The medical component of our disability review 
thus proceeds from the consensus of these two doctors that Spohn is medically 
capable of sedentary work.1   
{¶ 28} In 1990, Dr. James E. Mann stated, “The claimant, in my opinion, 
could engage in some forms of sustained remunerative employment, but there 
would be significant restrictions.  The claimant would have to be restricted to 
sedentary employment requiring lifting of no more than 10 or 15 lbs. and which 
would not require him to bend, lift, twist, or otherwise stress his back.  * * * In 
my opinion rehabilitation would not help to return the claimant to the forms of 
remunerative employment that he could perform within the above restrictions.” 
(Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 29} Eight years later, however, Spohn was capable of playing 95 
rounds of golf in less than a year.  On February 14, 2000, he was seen by Dr. 
Michael L. Koltz, who found no objective evidence to corroborate Spohn’s 
complaints of back pain, nor any evidence of lumbar instability.  As Dr. Koltz 
reported, Spohn was “very functional” and did not appear to have any problems 
walking or swinging a golf club.  He was also able to easily perform tasks 
associated with golfing, such as bending over to pick up golf balls and tees.  Koltz 
also noted that golf requires significant rotation of the back and that this 
requirement posed no problem for Spohn. Koltz concluded, “Spohn has a very 
                                                 
1.  We decline to speculate as to what the commission may have meant by its reference to “at 
least” sedentary employment and confine our review to that specified work capacity. 
January Term, 2007 
9 
good functional range of motion of the back and * * * clearly has no permanent 
total disability.” 
{¶ 30} Dr. Daniel J. Kuna also determined that Spohn’s allowed condition 
of “major depression, single episode” was in remission and did not render Spohn 
permanently and totally disabled.  Relying on these two doctors’ reports, the staff 
hearing officer found that in October 2000, Spohn was physically capable of 
sustained remunerative employment. 
{¶ 31} The hearing officer found that from a vocational standpoint, Spohn 
was capable of sustained remunerative employment.  A 1990 vocational 
assessment by the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s Rehabilitation Division 
had considered Spohn’s “pain behaviors” and “emotional conflicts” to be barriers 
to employability, but the later opinions of both Drs. Koltz and Kuna show that 
Spohn had significantly improved in both areas.  The hearing officer thus did not 
abuse her discretion in inferring that the physical and emotional improvement 
Spohn experienced after his epidural injections constituted a new and changed 
circumstance and that he was now capable of sustained remunerative work. 
{¶ 32} In one instance, however, the commission exceeded its permissible 
inferences. The commission found that Spohn has marketable computer skills. 
Spohn had one computer class in 1988, known to, and cited by, the commission in 
1991 when it awarded Spohn permanent total disability compensation.  The mere 
ability to surf the Internet and play video poker does not demonstrate computer 
skills transferable to the marketplace.  The commission’s wide discretion to draw  
inferences is not unlimited.  State ex rel. Lawson v. Mondie Forge, 104 Ohio 
St.3d 39, 44, 2004-Ohio-6086, 817 N.E.2d 880, ¶ 34.  Although the conclusion 
that Spohn possessed marketable computer skills is impermissible, this is not to 
say that the record shows he is incapable of all work. 
{¶ 33} We will not conclude that the commission abused its discretion so 
long as there is “some evidence in the record to support the commission’s stated 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
basis for its decision.”  State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc.  (1987), 31 Ohio 
St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936, syllabus. Under this standard of review, 
“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.  In this case, Spohn’s medical 
examiners have provided the evidence through their reports, explaining that 
Spohn now has improved range of motion in his back, as well as improved pain 
behaviors and emotional stability. He is capable of a sedentary job.  We therefore 
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment  affirmed. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. 
{¶ 34} A finding that a claimant is medically capable of sustained 
remunerative employment compels additional consideration of the individual’s 
nonmedical disability factors.  State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. Comm. (1987), 
31 Ohio St.3d 167, 31 OBR 369, 509 N.E.2d 946.  It is immaterial whether a 
claimant is medically capable of certain work if his or her nonmedical/vocational 
profile disqualifies the claimant from that work.  Because I believe that Spohn’s 
nonmedical profile disqualifies him from any employment of which he is 
physically capable, I respectfully dissent. 
{¶ 35} In 1991, the commission deemed Spohn’s education, work history, 
and rehabilitation potential to be so unfavorable as to overcome the one positive 
factor that Spohn possessed — his youth.  Nine years later, there is no evidence 
that Spohn’s education, employment history, or amenability to rehabilitation has 
improved.  Two things have, however, changed — Spohn is now older and a 
January Term, 2007 
11 
decade further removed from the workforce.  These factors do not enhance 
Spohn’s employability. 
{¶ 36} The commission relied heavily on what it considered to be Spohn’s 
transferable employment skill.  I find these conclusions to be unsustainable.  In 
my view, the commission’s finding that Spohn has marketable computer skills 
constitutes an abuse of discretion.  First, the staff hearing officer’s reference to 
“additional college training in computers” is misleading.  Spohn had one 
computer class in 1988; this is hardly relevant to 2007.  That training was also 
known to and cited by the commission in 1991, and it nonetheless awarded 
permanent total disability compensation.  Moreover, surfing the Internet and 
playing video poker games, contrary to the staff hearing officer’s suggestion, do 
not demonstrate computer skills transferable to the marketplace. 
{¶ 37} The same conclusion attaches to the staff hearing officer’s 
reference to Spohn’s birdwatching.  Spohn records sightings at his bird feeder.  
The staff hearing officer felt that this activity demonstrated organizational and 
recordkeeping skills that enhanced Spohn’s job prospects.  This conclusion also 
cannot be endorsed.  Spohn’s tally of finches and blue jays visiting his feeder is 
not a transferable employment skill. 
{¶ 38} The commission’s conclusion that Spohn can perform sustained 
remunerative employment cannot be reconciled with the underlying facts.  In my 
view, the commission has abused its discretion in terminating Spohn’s permanent 
total disability compensation, and, accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of 
the court of appeals. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and PFEIFER, J., concur in the foregoing opinion. 
__________________ 
Fell & Marcus Co., L.P.A., and George N. Fell II, for appellant. 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Kevin R. Sanislo, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
Law Offices of Margelefsky & Mezinko, L.L.C., Vincent S. Mezinko, and 
Michael P. Margelefsky, for appellee Seaway Food Town, Inc. 
______________________