Opinion ID: 5126238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Some Evidence

Text: {¶ 13} The Tenth District correctly concluded that OPERS’s decision to deny Powell’s application for disability benefits was supported by some evidence, specifically (1) Dr. Steiman’s opinion that Powell was not permanently disabled because his migraines were easily treatable and his cervicogenic headaches were not disabling, (2) Dr. Mankowski’s opinion that Powell’s migraines were episodic and treatable and that his cervicogenic headaches had subsided, (3) Dr. Deitch’s recommendations on behalf of MMRO that Powell was not disabled, based on MMRO’s review of Powell’s medical records, and (4) Dr. Mast’s recommendations that the application be denied on the same basis. {¶ 14} Powell argues that OPERS may not ignore evidence that is favorable to him, such as his own physician’s opinion. But there is no evidence that OPERS ignored Dr. Mysiw’s opinion; to the contrary, his reports were referred to in Dr. Steiman’s and Dr. Mankowski’s reports as well as MMRO’s report. 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 15} Powell then asserts that the IME system is inherently biased against claimants, though he offers no evidence in support of this allegation. OPERS points out that Powell waived his inherent-bias argument by not raising it before the Tenth District. See State v. Wintermeyer, 158 Ohio St.3d 513, 2019-Ohio-5156, 145 N.E.3d 278, ¶ 10 (“a party ordinarily may not present an argument on appeal that it failed to raise below”). But even if Powell has not waived that argument, it is meritless. {¶ 16} R.C. 145.35(E) provides that OPERS shall grant Powell disability benefits only if (1) OPERS’s examining physician (in this case, Dr. Steiman or Dr. Mankowski) determines that he qualifies for benefits, (2) the board’s medical consultant (in this case, Dr. Mast) concurs, and (3) the OPERS board itself also concurs. Those statutory requirements were indisputably not met here, and we may not alter or ignore them. {¶ 17} Consistent with the above, we have held that OPERS “does not abuse its discretion by accepting the opinion of its reviewing physician over that of the claimant’s treating physician.” Woodman, 144 Ohio St.3d 367, 2015-Ohio-3807, 43 N.E.3d 426, at ¶ 18. And with respect to the reviews by MMRO and Dr. Mast, “a medical expert’s file review can constitute ‘some evidence’ supporting the denial of disability compensation.    The 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.) State ex rel. Wegman v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 155 Ohio St.3d 223, 2018-Ohio-4243, 120 N.E.3d 786, ¶ 18.