[Cite as State ex rel. Parker v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. Bd., 2021-Ohio-4391.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

State of Ohio ex rel., : 

Peter G. Parker, 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 20AP-511

 : (C.P.C. No. 19CV-2080) 

v. 

 : (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

State Teachers Retirement System 

Board of Ohio, : 

 

 Defendant-Appellee. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on December 14, 2021 

 

On brief: Jones Law Group, LLC, and Nathaniel W. Jackson, 

for appellant. 

 

On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, Samuel A. Peppers, 

III, Lisa A. Reid, and Isaac Molnar, for appellee. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

BROWN, J. 

{¶ 1} This is an appeal by plaintiff-appellant, Peter G. Parker, from a judgment of 

the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying appellant's request for a writ of 

mandamus to compel defendant-appellee, State Teachers Retirement System Board of 

Ohio ("STRB"), to approve his application for disability benefits. 

{¶ 2} The following background facts are taken primarily from the trial court's 

findings of fact set forth in its mandamus decision. From 2003 through October 2011, 

appellant was a member of the State Teachers Retirement System ("STRS") and "worked 

as a school teacher in STRS-covered employment." In October 2011, appellant "left that 
No. 20AP-511 2 

employment because he could no longer work a full year due to multiple sclerosis" ("MS"). 

Since October 2011, appellant "has been unable to work a full year due to MS." (Decision 

at 2.) 

{¶ 3} In October 2011, appellant applied with STRS for disability benefits, and 

STRB "approved his application." Appellant "received STRS disability benefits related to 

his MS" from October 2011 to August 2014. (Decision at 2.) 

{¶ 4} In August 2014, appellant "began working as a part-time teacher for Horizon 

Science Academy, which was an STRS-covered employer." Because Horizon Science 

Academy ("Horizon") was an STRS-covered employer, appellant's "STRS disability benefits 

terminated when he began working there." Appellant "worked for Horizon, in STRScovered employment, until late August 2014." (Decision at 2.) 

{¶ 5} Appellant then began work as a full-time teacher at Rite of Passage ("ROP"), 

"a juvenile facility that was not an STRS-covered employer." Appellant "worked for ROP 

from late August 2014 to mid-November 2017," during which "he was not eligible to receive 

STRS disability benefits." (Decision at 2.) 

{¶ 6} Appellant's "contributing STRS service terminated in August 2014 when he 

left his STRS-covered employment with Horizon." Pursuant to R.C. 3307.62(D), appellant 

"had until August 2016 to apply to STRS for disability benefits based upon that 

employment." (Decision at 2.) Appellant "did not apply to STRS for disability benefits 

based upon his employment with Horizon, and the 'window' for [appellant] to apply for 

STRS disability benefits based upon that employment closed in August 2016." (Decision at 

2-3.) 

{¶ 7} In 2016, appellant "pre-arranged with his friend James Weeks to substitute 

as a physical education teacher at The Center for Collaborative Solutions in Cincinnati, 

Ohio." In August 2016, appellant "returned to STRS-covered employment" when The 

Center for Collaborative Solutions ("CCS") hired him as a substitute teacher. Appellant "did 

not actually work" for CCS "until October 14, 2016, when he worked one day as a substitute 

teacher for Mr. Weeks." Due to "fatigue and other issues," appellant "terminated his 

employment" with CCS in November 2017. (Decision at 3.) 

{¶ 8} On November 30, 2017, appellant applied to STRS for disability benefits 

"based upon his one day of employment at [CCS] on October 14, 2016." Appellant's 
No. 20AP-511 3 

application "was supported by a report by his treating physician, Aram Zabeti, MD, a 

neurologist, who reported that [appellant] suffered from relapsing remitting MS, that the 

condition was disabling, and that the condition was expected to last 12 or more months." 

(Decision at 3.) 

{¶ 9} Appellant's complete application for disability benefits was received by STRS 

on January 22, 2018. At the request of the STRS Medical Review Board ("MRB"), "Gerald 

Steiman, M.D., a neurologist, performed an independent medical evaluation" of appellant 

on February 21, 2018. Martin Gottesman, M.D., the chair of MRB, "asked Dr. Steiman to 

provide his opinion 'to determine if [appellant] is qualified for any further teaching 

service.' " Dr. Gottesman instructed Dr. Steiman that " '[t]he purpose of the examination is 

solely the determination of disability for the member's last STRS Ohio covered position.' " 

(Decision at 3.) 

{¶ 10} By letter dated February 28, 2018, Dr. Steiman reported to Dr. Gottesman 

that, in his opinion, appellant "was physically unable to return to full-time teaching due to 

MS." Dr. Steiman suggested "it would be appropriate to reassess [appellant] in one year to 

evaluate for possible improvement or stability." (Decision at 4.) 

{¶ 11} By letter dated March 13, 2018, Dr. Gottesman "asked Dr. Steiman to clarify 

whether [appellant] was disabled from his most recent STRS-covered job, specifically, 

being a substitute teacher for one day per year." In that letter, Dr. Gottesman asked Dr. 

Steiman to " 'review the enclosed Case Timeline and clarify your opinion. Your conclusion 

should be specific to Mr. Parker's most recent STRS Ohio job. Based on objective evidence 

is Mr. Parker disabled from substitute teaching for one day per year?' " (Decision at 4.) 

{¶ 12} By letter dated April 4, 2018, Dr. Steiman "clarified his opinion to Dr. 

Gottesman," stating as follows: " 'Due to the multiple sclerosis, Mr. Parker is unable to 

return to his prior job activity on a full time basis. However, Mr. Parker's history, medical 

record review, and physical exam provide sufficient credible evidence to indicate he is able 

to work one day per year as a substitute teacher.' " Dr. Steiman therefore "certified to the 

[MRB] that [appellant] was not physically or mentally incapacitated from his most recent 

job duties for 12 continuous months." (Decision at 4.) 

{¶ 13} The members of the MRB, i.e., "Claire Wolfe, M.D., James Allen, M.D., and 

Albert Kolibash, Jr., M.D., then reviewed [appellant's] medical records and provided 
No. 20AP-511 4 

opinions to their Chair, Dr. Gottesman." (Decision at 4.) Dr. Wolfe, who issued a letter on 

April 19, 2018, stated in part: 

Peter Parker is a 43 man with a * * * 9yr history of relapsing 

remitting multiple sclerosis. * * * His last teaching job was as 

a substitute with the Center for Collaborative Solutions in 

Hamilton County. He worked one day in the year. 

Both Mr. Parker's attending neurologist, Dr. Zabeti * * * and 

the STRS examining neurologist, Dr. Steiman, describe Mr. 

Parker's major deficits as ataxia with unstable gait (but no need 

for ambulation aids and no history of significant falls) and 

dysmetria of especially his left hand. (He is right-handed.) He 

is independent in activities of daily living and has no difficulty 

with driving, working around the house, doing housework, 

managing money or participating in social activities. 

Mr. Parker had extensive cognitive testing 11/2/2017 by Dr. 

Jessica MacDonald at the U. of C. who concluded that "the 

current test results do not raise concern about his ability to 

work from a cognitive standpoint or manage his personal 

affairs." * * * 

Dr. Steiman's neurologic findings did not differ from those 

documented in his treating physician's notes. Dr. Steiman did 

not feel he could return to full time teaching but did find him 

able to continue as a substitute teacher. I agree. 

{¶ 14} Dr. Allen submitted a letter, dated April 24, 2018, stating in part: 

I reviewed disability application materials on Peter G. Parker. 

He is a 43-year old substitute teacher for the Center for 

Collaborative Solutions who has a condition supported by his 

attending physician of multiple sclerosis. He initially developed 

incoordination and blurry vision in 2009 and was diagnosed 

with multiple sclerosis in 2011. A neuro-psychological 

evaluation by Jessica MacDonald * * * in November 2017 

indicated generally intact cognitive function. * * * He has 

worked in various teaching capacities since 2003. * * * He 

worked 1 day as an STRS-covered substitute teacher in * * * 

2016. 

In November 2017, his attending neurologist, Dr. Zabeti, 

recommended that he is permanently incapacitated due to 

multiple sclerosis. 
No. 20AP-511 5 

In February 2018, he underwent an independent medical 

examination by Dr. Gerald Steiman who opined that he is not 

permanently incapacitated. Dr. Steiman found that he had 

appropriate memory, no cranial nerve deficits, mild-moderate 

dysmetria in the left upper and lower extremity, a wide-based 

ataxic gait, and a positive Romberg test. In a self-reported 

activities of daily living questionnaire, Mr. Parker reported 

little to no difficulty with most activities but moderate difficulty 

with: walking, climbing stairs, grasping, lifting, coordination, 

and vigorous physical activity. Dr. Steiman determined that 

although he is unable to work full-time, he could resume his 

previous work duties of 1 day per year of substitute teaching. 

In summary, this STRS member has multiple sclerosis with 

difficulty of performing vigorous physical activities and some 

complex motor activities. Since his last employment as a 

substitute teacher covered by STRS in 2016, he was able to 

work for more than a year in a non-STRS teaching capacity. 

Although he clearly has physical impairments, they should not 

preclude him from working as a substitute teacher, particularly 

for the very limited time of his previous STRS-related 

employment of 1 day per year. I recommend that disability 

retirement be denied. 

{¶ 15} On May 10, 2018, Dr. Kolibash issued a letter to Dr. Gottesman stating in 

part: 

I reviewed the application for disability benefit related to [the] 

above member. * * * 

The applicant is a 43-year-old, male substitute teacher who has 

applied for disability benefit because of multiple sclerosis. * * * 

Current symptoms include imbalance, instability, increasing 

fatigue with decreasing endurance, and a recent fall. * * * 

* * * 

An attending physician's report, dated 11/29/2017, was 

provided by Dr. Aram Zabeti. Dr. Zabeti diagnosed relapsing 

remitting multiple sclerosis and opined that the member was 

disabled. His report included the results of an outpatient 

neuropsychological evaluation dated 11/2/2017. * * * The 

results of the neuropsychological testing were interpreted as 

demonstrating that the member had generally intact cognitive 

abilities. 

* * * 
No. 20AP-511 6 

An independent medical examination was performed on 

2/28/2018 by Gerald Steiman, M.D., a neurologist. Dr. 

Steiman performed a neurological evaluation including a 

history, physical examination, and review of medical data. The 

history is as described above. On this particular examination 

the applicant's major complaint was imbalance and 

disequilibrium. He also indicated problems with coordination 

involving the left hand, fatigue, generalized weakness, and 

difficulty with memory. 

In his discussion Dr. Steiman indicated that the claimant has 

evidence of dysmetria of the left arm and leg and is moderately 

ataxic requiring support to gain stability when walking. Dr. 

Steiman opined that the applicant's "history, medical record 

review, and physical exam provide sufficient credible evidence 

that he is disabled as per the STRS Ohio definition." The 

medical examiner indicated that the applicant was unable to 

perform the demands of his prior job activity. 

A follow up letter from Dr. Steiman was dated 4/4/2018. In 

this letter the medical examiner clarified his initial opinion and 

stated the following: ["]Due to the multiple sclerosis, (the 

applicant) is unable to return to his prior job activity on a fulltime basis. However, (the applicant's) history, medical record 

review, and physical exam provided sufficient credible 

evidence to indicate that he is able to work one day per year as 

a substitute teacher." 

In summary, the applicant is a 43-year-old, substitute teacher 

who has been teaching one day a year. His disabling condition 

is multiple sclerosis which is well documented * * *. Imaging 

studies have shown stability of lesions in the white matter and 

thoracic spinal cord. The member experiences instability of 

gait and currently has an abnormal neurological examination 

with dysmetria of the left upper extremity. Based upon my 

review of the information provided in this disability application 

it is my opinion that this member is unable to perform his 

duties on a full-time basis and as such is permanently 

incapacitated to work full-time. However, the member appears 

capable of working as a substitute teacher one day a year. 

{¶ 16} On May 15, 2018, the MRB recommended to STRB that appellant's 

application for disability benefits "be denied." On June 21, 2018, STRB adopted the MRB's 

recommendation and "denied [appellant's] application for disability benefits." By letter 
No. 20AP-511 7 

dated June 22, 2018, STRS notified appellant of the decision and advised him of his right 

to appeal the decision. On June 27, 2018, appellant "timely appealed" the denial of his 

application for disability benefits. (Decision at 8.) 

{¶ 17} By letter dated June 28, 2018, STRS acknowledged receipt of appellant's 

appeal "and requested that he submit a written statement regarding his ability to perform 

his most recent STRS-covered position." (Decision at 8.) Appellant submitted a written 

statement to STRS on August 16, 2018. By letter dated August 28, 2018, "optometrist 

Matthew T. Ritter, O.D.," provided an opinion to appellant's attorney regarding " 'the visual 

findings and potential or current problems he may be experiencing.' " (Decision at 10.) By 

letter dated August 28, 2018, appellant's "friend, James Weeks," an elementary physical 

education teacher, provided information to appellant's attorney, including information 

regarding accommodations he provided to appellant on October 14, 2016. (Decision at 11.) 

{¶ 18} By letter dated August 30, 2018, Dr. Steiman provided (per the request of Dr. 

Gottesman) an updated opinion to the MRB based on a review of "additional medical 

records" from appellant. (Decision at 12.) Dr. Steiman stated in part: " 'Based on Mr. 

Parker's history as well as the updated medical review record, there is strong and credible 

evidence to indicate that Mr. Parker is not disabled from * * * his one-day substitute teacher 

duties.' " Dr. Steiman further stated: " 'Given the observation that Mr. Parker has corrected 

vision of 20/20 in both eyes, there is no credible evidence that his vision would preclude 

his ability to return to his prior job activities.' " (Decision at 13.) 

{¶ 19} By letter dated September 19, 2018, appellant's "treating physician, Dr. 

Zabeti," provided information to appellant's attorney stating it was his impression 

appellant " 'cannot return to his job as a substitute teacher for one day a year.' " (Decision 

at 13.) 

{¶ 20} By letter dated October 31, 2018, Dr. Steiman provided an updated opinion 

to the MRB "having reviewed additional medical records" from appellant. In that letter, 

Dr. Steiman stated in part: " 'The updated medical record review provides no information 

that would cause me to alter my prior opinions. My opinion remains that Mr. Parker's 

history, updated medical record review, and physical exam provide sufficient credible 

evidence to indicate he is able to work one day a year as a substitute teacher.' " (Decision 

at 15.) 
No. 20AP-511 8 

{¶ 21} In a memorandum dated November 8, 2018, Dr. Gottesman reported to 

STRB regarding appellant's application, stating in part: " 'The [MRB] continues to 

recommend that disability benefits be denied as there is no medical evidence of a disabling 

physical or psychiatric condition that would prevent Mr. Parker from performing his most 

recent job as a Substitute Teacher for one day per year, especially with the accommodations 

provided at that last single day of STRS service.' " (Decision at 17-18.) 

{¶ 22} On November 14, 2018, the STRS Disability Review Panel ("disability review 

panel") conducted an appeal hearing on the denial of appellant's application for disability 

benefits. Appellant and his attorney "appeared at the hearing and addressed the panel." 

(Decision at 18.) 

{¶ 23} During the hearing before the disability review panel, counsel for appellant 

argued that appellant "does meet the disability requirements inasmuch as he is physically 

incapacitated for the performance of his former position as a substitute teacher for one day 

a year as is established by a medically disabling condition here, his diagnosis of multiple 

sclerosis, or MS." (Tr. at 6.) Counsel argued "if he were permitted to go back as a substitute 

teacher for one day, he would need an aide to assist him the entire time that he's there." 

(Tr. at 7.) Also during the hearing, appellant described the day in which he worked at CCS, 

stating he was "a substitute for a physical education class elementary school." (Tr. at 8.) 

Appellant stated he had "a substantial amount of accommodations that were provided by 

the regular ed teachers because they knew my limitations." (Tr. at 10.) 

{¶ 24} The chair of the disability review panel questioned appellant during the 

hearing as to whether "this one day of subbing was set up in a way to * * * get around the 

fact that your previous eligibility for disability application had expired, and so you needed 

to put in a day just to * * * reestablish your ability to apply." Appellant responded: "I would 

have to say no because I had spent the previous 10 years being a regular classroom teacher." 

(Tr. at 20.) The chair further inquired whether appellant had attempted "other kinds of 

teaching," because "[i]t seems like phys. ed. was kind of a reach." (Tr. at 20-21.) Appellant 

stated he had "not subbed in any other classroom, whether it be English, another discipline, 

no, I have not." Appellant further responded: "I am not a licensed teacher in any other 

subject than social studies, so I'm not a phys. ed. teacher." (Tr. at 21.) 
No. 20AP-511 9 

{¶ 25} On November 16, 2018, STRB voted to affirm the denial of appellant's 

application for disability benefits. By letter dated November 16, 2018, STRS notified 

appellant that STRB "had affirmed its prior decision to deny his application for disability 

benefits." (Decision at 18.) 

{¶ 26} On March 11, 2019, appellant filed a mandamus action with the Franklin 

County Court of Common Pleas. By decision and entry filed October 5, 2020, the trial court 

denied appellant's request for a writ of mandamus and dismissed the action. 

{¶ 27} On appeal, appellant sets forth two assignments of error for this court's 

review: 

1. The Court of Common Pleas erred in finding the February 28, 

2018 and April 4, 2018 conflicting opinions of Dr. Steiman 

constituted "some evidence" to support the State Teachers 

Retirement System ("STRS") Board of Ohio's ("STRB") 

determination that Parker is not disabled. 

2. The Court of Common Pleas erred in finding the opinions of 

State Teachers Retirement System Medical Review Board 

("STRS MRB") doctors Wolfe, Allen and Kolibash [constituted] 

"some evidence" to support the STRB's determination that 

Parker is not disabled. 

{¶ 28} Appellant's assignments of error are interrelated and will be considered 

together. Under these assignments of error, appellant argues the trial court erred in finding 

the opinions of the independent medical examiner (Dr. Steiman) and the three MRB 

physicians (Drs. Wolfe, Allen, and Kolibash) constituted "some evidence" to support STRS's 

determination he was not disabled. 

{¶ 29} In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, "a party must establish, by clear 

and convincing evidence, (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear legal duty 

on the part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the 

ordinary course of the law." State ex rel. Wegman v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 155 

Ohio St.3d 223, 2018-Ohio-4243, ¶ 14, citing State ex rel. Love v. O'Donnell, 150 Ohio St.3d 

378, 2017-Ohio-5659, ¶ 3. 

{¶ 30} STRB "manages the STRS funds," and "[t]he determination of whether a 

STRS member is entitled to disability retirement is solely within the province of the STRB." 

State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327, 2002-Ohio-2219, 
No. 20AP-511 10 

¶ 13. Under Ohio law, "[t]he determination by STRS and its retirement board, STRB, of 

whether a person is entitled to disability retirement benefits is reviewable by mandamus 

because R.C. 3307.62 does not provide any appeal from the administrative determination." 

Id. at ¶ 14. Thus, "mandamus is an appropriate remedy where no statutory right of appeal 

is available to correct an abuse of discretion by an administrative body." Id.

{¶ 31} An abuse of discretion occurs when an administrative body renders a decision 

that is "unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." State ex rel. Woodman v. Ohio Pub. 

Emps. Retirement Sys., 144 Ohio St.3d 367, 2015-Ohio-3807, ¶ 17, citing State ex rel. 

Shisler v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 122 Ohio St.3d 148, 2009-Ohio-2522, ¶ 11. In 

this respect, "[t]he board abuses its discretion—and a clear right to mandamus exists—if it 

enters an order that is not supported by some evidence." Id., citing State ex rel. Nese v. 

State Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 103, 2013-Ohio-1777, ¶ 26. Thus, 

"[o]nly if the board's decision is not supported by any evidence will mandamus lie." 

(Emphasis sic.) Id., citing State ex rel. Riddell v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 10th Dist. 

No. 13AP-660, 2014-Ohio-1646, ¶ 20. This court's task, "[a]t this stage of the proceedings," 

is to review the decision of the trial court "to determine if it abused its discretion in denying 

the writ." State ex rel. Altman-Bates v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 148 Ohio St.3d 21, 

2016-Ohio-3100, ¶ 23. 

{¶ 32} Pursuant to R.C. 3307.62(C), "[i]n order to be entitled to disability retirement 

benefits, an STRS member must be 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." Pipoly at 

¶ 23, citing R.C. 3307.62(C). R.C. 3307.62(D) states in part: "Application for a disability 

benefit must be made within a two-year period from the date the member's contributing 

service terminated." Thus, in accordance with the provisions of R.C. 3307.62(D), 

"termination from service begins the running of a two-year period during which an 

application for a disability benefit may be filed." State ex rel. Kleja v. State Teachers 

Retirement Bd., 10th Dist. No. 08AP-326, 2009-Ohio-2047, ¶ 66. 

{¶ 33} As set forth under the facts, STRS received appellant's complete application 

for disability benefits in January 2018 and, as noted by STRB, the only contributing service 

for appellant within two years of 2018 was his employment at CCS for a single day. In this 
No. 20AP-511 11 

respect, the supporting documentation for the application included information on a 

"report by employer," dated November 28, 2017, listing appellant's job title with CCS as 

"substitute teacher" and his payroll status as "[p]art-time * * * [a]s Needed." That report, 

in response to a request for a description of "any accom[m]odations" made, stated: "He 

only worked 1 day for us." Based on a review of the medical evidence, the MRB 

recommended to STRB that disability benefits "be denied as there is no medical evidence 

of a disabling physical or psychiatric condition that would prevent Mr. Parker from 

performing his most recent job duties as a Substitute Teacher for one day per year, 

especially with the accommodations provided at that last single day of STRS service." (Dr. 

Gottesman memo to STRS Board dated Nov. 8, 2018 at 3.) 

{¶ 34} Appellant first argues that Dr. Steiman (STRS's independent medical 

examiner) initially agreed with Dr. Zabeti (appellant's treating physician) that appellant 

was disabled and "physically unable to perform the demands of his prior job activity." 

Appellant contends it was only after additional prompting from Dr. Gottesman of the MRB 

that Dr. Steiman offered his subsequent and "conflicting" opinion which states appellant 

could perform his job as a substitute teacher for one day. According to appellant, there was 

no reason for Dr. Gottesman to request that Dr. Steiman reconsider his opinion aside from 

the fact STRB did not want to approve his application. Appellant argues there has been no 

evidence to counter his contention he was unable to perform the essential duties of his job 

during the one day he worked. Appellant maintains that, without further explanation from 

Dr. Steiman, his opinion is unquestionably equivocal and cannot be considered some 

evidence. 

{¶ 35} In response, STRB argues there was ample evidence to support the decision 

denying disability benefits, including evidence from appellant's own conduct, the findings 

of his personal physician, and extensive STRB evaluation. STRB notes appellant's treating 

physician, Dr. Zabeti, stated in a September 2018 report that appellant was "able to work a 

full day." STRB further contends the evidence indicates appellant was able to work a single 

day each year when necessary to make a claim for disability benefits, and that there is 

significant evidence he can still work a single day a year. 

{¶ 36} Regarding appellant's claim that Dr. Steiman rendered equivocal opinions, 

STRB asserts that Dr. Steiman's assessment never wavered once he based his opinion on 
No. 20AP-511 12 

the correct job description (i.e., STRB maintains Dr. Steiman has not changed his opinion 

as to whether appellant could return to his former job activity on a full-time basis, nor has 

he changed his opinion as to whether appellant can work one day a year as a substitute 

teacher). STRB further argues that, contrary to appellant's assertion, file reviews conducted 

by MRB constitute some evidence to support the decision of STRB. 

{¶ 37} As indicated, appellant challenges the opinion of Dr. Steiman as equivocal. 

Under Ohio law, " 'equivocation occurs when a doctor repudiates an earlier opinion, 

renders contradictory or uncertain opinions, or fails to clarify an ambiguous statement.' " 

State ex rel. Bryan v. State Teachers Retirement Sys. Bd. of Ohio, 10th Dist. No. 15AP1004, 2016-Ohio-5802, ¶ 32, quoting State ex rel. Eberhardt v. Flxible Corp., 70 Ohio St.3d 

649, 657 (1994). 

{¶ 38} On review, we agree with STRB that Dr. Steiman's opinion is not equivocal as 

repudiating an earlier opinion. Specifically, Dr. Steiman did not change his opinion as to 

whether appellant was able to work full-time; rather, in response to a request by MRB to 

consider whether appellant was capable of a return to his most recent STRS job as a 

substitute teacher for one day, Dr. Steiman clarified that, while appellant could not return 

to his former position on a full-time basis, he was capable of returning to work one day per 

year as a substitute teacher (i.e., he was not incapacitated from his most recent STRS job 

duties for 12 consecutive months from the date of application). 

{¶ 39} Further, as noted under the facts, in addition to the opinion of Dr. Steiman, 

the three physicians of MRB each reviewed appellant's medical information and 

unanimously recommended denial of appellant's application for disability benefits. Dr. 

Wolfe specifically noted appellant "is independent in activities of daily living and has no 

difficulty with driving, working around the house, doing housework, managing money or 

participating in social activities," and that extensive cognitive testing by a physician did not 

raise concern about his ability to work from a cognitive standpoint. Dr. Allen similarly 

noted appellant had "little to no difficulty with most activities" and that, while he "clearly 

has physical impairments," such impairments "should not preclude him from working as a 

substitute teacher, particularly for the very limited time of his previous STRS-related 

employment." Dr. Kolibash concluded, based on his review of information provided in the 

disability application, "it is my opinion that this member is unable to perform his duties on 
No. 20AP-511 13 

a full-time basis * * *. However, the member appears capable of working as a substitute 

teacher one day a year." 

{¶ 40} In addressing appellant's request for a writ of mandamus, the trial court, "[i]n 

considering the opinions of Doctors Steiman, Wolfe, Allen, and Kolibash," concluded that 

STRB "has demonstrated some evidence to support its decision" to deny appellant's 

application for disability benefits. (Decision at 20.) We agree that the record contains some 

evidence to support STRB's determination appellant was not disabled from his most recent 

job duties for 12 continuous months following the filing of the application. 

{¶ 41} While appellant points to the disability opinion of his own treating physician, 

"the presence of contrary evidence is immaterial if there is evidence in support of the 

board's findings of fact." State ex rel. Kolcinko v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 131 

Ohio St.3d 111, 2012-Ohio-46, ¶ 9. Moreover, where "medical evidence conflicts in a matter 

concerning a benefits determination, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of [STRB] 

absent an abuse of discretion." State ex rel. Mullenax v. State Teacher[s] Retirement Plan,

10th Dist. No. 08AP-116, 2008-Ohio-4261, ¶ 18. The Supreme Court of Ohio has made 

clear that "a medical expert's file review can constitute 'some evidence' supporting the 

denial of disability compensation." Wegman at ¶ 18. In this respect, "the amount of 

supporting detail that the expert provides in the report goes to the weight and credibility of 

the expert's ultimate opinion, and the board, not this court, has 'the exclusive authority to 

evaluate the weight and credibility of the medical evidence,' [and] [t]he medical opinion 

expressed, when drawn from a review of all the evidence, is itself some evidence that the 

board can rely on in reaching a decision." (Emphasis sic.) Id. On review, we conclude the 

trial court did not err in its determination that some evidence supported the STRB's 

decision denying appellant's application for disability benefits. 

{¶ 42} Appellant's contention that it was error for MRB to rely on the opinions of the 

three physicians of MRB (Drs. Wolfe, Allen, and Kolibash) as "some evidence" is without 

merit. Appellant's argument is premised on his claim that Dr. Steiman's opinion is 

equivocal, and that any opinions offered by MRB physicians based on Dr. Steiman's 

findings should be invalidated and similarly not considered as some evidence to support 

STRB's disability determination. Appellant further contends it would be procedurally an 

abuse of discretion, under the provisions of R.C. 3307.62(C) and (E), to consider the 
No. 20AP-511 14 

opinions of MRB physicians after the opinion of Dr. Steiman has been invalidated. Having 

rejected appellant's contention that the independent medical examiner's opinion was 

equivocal, any claim that MRB physicians erred in relying on that opinion is not persuasive, 

nor has appellant shown any procedural error. 

{¶ 43} As noted under the facts, following appellant's application for a disability 

benefit, STRB appointed an independent medical examiner who, in a report dated April 4, 

2018, certified to STRB that appellant was not incapacitated from his most recent job duties 

for 12 continuous months. Following that determination, and in accordance with the 

provisions of R.C. 3307.62(E), the application and records were "reviewed by three 

independent physicians on a medical review board designated by STRB." State ex rel. Menz 

v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 144 Ohio St.3d 26, 2015-Ohio-2337, ¶ 3. Based on that 

review, MRB recommended denial, and STRB voted to deny disability; appellant was then 

afforded the opportunity to appeal that determination and appear at a hearing before a 

disability review panel, all in accordance with the provisions of R.C. 3307.62(F) and Ohio 

Adm.Code. 3307:1-7-06(B). See Menz at ¶ 3 ("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."). Following that appeal, STRB affirmed its prior 

determination. 

{¶ 44} On review, the record indicates STRB properly considered the application in 

accordance with the provisions of R.C. 3307.62 and the Ohio Administrative Code. Further, 

because there was some evidence to support STRB's determination, the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying appellant's request for a writ of mandamus. 

{¶ 45} Based on the foregoing, appellant's first and second assignments of error are 

overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

BEATTY BLUNT and MENTEL, JJ., concur. 

__________________