Opinion ID: 2691379
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence Supporting Board’s Decision

Text: {¶ 28} To be entitled to the requested writ of mandamus to compel the retirement board to vacate its decision terminating her disability-retirement benefits, Cydrus must establish that the board abused its discretion. See State ex rel. Davis v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 120 Ohio St.3d 386, 2008-Ohio-6254, 899 N.E.2d 975, ¶ 25. To prove an abuse of discretion, she must show that the retirement board’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Id. In addition, the retirement board does not abuse its discretion if there is sufficient evidence to support its determination. State ex rel. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 123 Ohio St.3d 146, 2009-Ohio-4694, 914 N.E.2d 1038, ¶ 16. {¶ 29} Cydrus asserts that the retirement board abused its discretion by relying on Dr. Steiman’s report in its decision. She dismisses the report as irreconcilable with the ongoing medical reports of her treating physicians and a prior report of a retirement system medical advisor. She describes the report as “complete nonsense” for opining that her headaches were not work-prohibitive because they were subjective. {¶ 30} These assertions lack merit. Nothing in R.C. 145.362 or Ohio Adm.Code 145-2-23 requires the retirement board to credit the findings of either Cydrus’s treating physicians or one of the consultative physicians over the findings of a different independent medical examiner. See, e.g., Pipoly, 95 Ohio St.3d 327, 2002-Ohio-2219, 767 N.E.2d 719, ¶ 26 (construing an analogous retirement-disability provision). Notably, other doctors who had examined Cydrus in the past and whose reports are also part of the retirement board’s records expressed opinions that were similar to those held by Dr. Steiman. And Dr. Steiman’s emphasis on the lack of objective medical evidence to support 10 January Term, 2010 Cydrus’s medical claims is not fatal. “[E]ven for medical conditions with symptoms that are often unsupported by objective medical evidence, ‘subjective complaints are not conclusive of disability, and objective medical evidence is still relevant to a determination of the severity of the condition.’ ” Morgan, 121 Ohio St.3d 324, 2009-Ohio-591, 904 N.E.2d 506, ¶ 23, quoting VanCleave, 120 Ohio St.3d 261, 2008-Ohio-5377, 898 N.E.2d 33, ¶ 47. {¶ 31} Therefore, the retirement board did not abuse its discretion by relying on Dr. Steiman’s medical report in terminating Cydrus’s disabilityretirement benefits. It constituted sufficient evidence to support the board’s determination.