Opinion ID: 5126238
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fiduciary Duty and Evid.R. 403

Text: {¶ 18} Powell’s principal argument on appeal is that OPERS should have discounted Dr. Steiman’s and Dr. Mankowski’s opinions. He argues (1) that OPERS owes him a fiduciary duty, (2) that because OPERS owes him a fiduciary duty, it must apply Evid.R. 403 and disregard evidence that is more prejudicial than probative, and (3) that in accordance with Evid.R. 403, Dr. Steiman’s and Dr. 6 January Term, 2021 Mankowski’s opinions must be excluded because they are more prejudicial than probative (and so, presumably, MMRO’s and Dr. Mast’s opinions, which rely on the opinions of Drs. Steiman and Mankowski, must be excluded). {¶ 19} Powell’s argument overlooks the fact that R.C. 145.35(E) requires OPERS to consider the opinions of its examining physicians. Moreover, no authority supports his argument, which means that he cannot establish entitlement to a writ of mandamus. See State ex rel. Domhoff v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys. Bd., 140 Ohio St.3d 284, 2014-Ohio-3688, 17 N.E.3d 569, ¶ 13 (relator must establish a clear legal right to relief). And we may not create the right that is enforceable in a mandamus action. State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327, 2002-Ohio-2219, 767 N.E.2d 719, ¶ 18.
{¶ 20} Powell bases his fiduciary-duty argument on the portion of R.C. 145.36 that states that the members whom OPERS determines qualify for disability benefits “shall be retired on disability.” However, nothing in R.C. 145.36 mentions a fiduciary duty, let alone imposes one on the OPERS board with respect to its determination of Powell’s disability-benefits application. {¶ 21} Powell next analogizes the OPERS board to fiduciaries who govern benefit plans under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), citing federal case law setting forth, in general terms, the duty of ERISA fiduciaries to “see that those entitled to benefits receive them,” Gaither v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 394 F.3d 792, 807-808 (10th Cir.2004). But Gaither also notes the duty of ERISA fiduciaries “to protect the plan’s assets against spurious claims.” Id. at 807. More to the point, this court has made it clear that ERISA does not apply to OPERS. Erb v. Erb, 75 Ohio St.3d 18, 20, 661 N.E.2d 175 (1996) (“Congress expressly exempted government retirement systems    from ERISA’s scope”). {¶ 22} Powell has not established the existence of a fiduciary duty that is enforceable in mandamus in this case. 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
{¶ 23} OPERS correctly points out that Powell raised the argument that Evid.R. 403 bars consideration of Dr. Steiman’s and Dr. Mankowski’s opinions for the first time in his Tenth District reply brief. OPERS asserts that we need not consider the argument, citing State ex rel. Grounds v. Hocking Cty. Bd. of Elections, 117 Ohio St.3d 116, 2008-Ohio-566, 881 N.E.2d 1252, ¶ 24, in which we noted, in an original action filed in this court, that a party is not permitted to raise new arguments in its reply brief. OPERS acknowledges, though, that the Tenth District did address Powell’s Evid.R. 403 argument. We will therefore consider it; however, we find it meritless. {¶ 24} Evid.R. 403 states that evidence must be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The only authority that Powell cites in support of his argument that OPERS must refuse to consider some medical opinions is the existence of the fiduciary duty discussed above. He asserts that for the some-evidence standard to have meaning, OPERS must disregard any evidence that is more prejudicial than probative; otherwise, OPERS would not be fulfilling its fiduciary duty to Powell. But as explained above, Powell has not established the existence of the duty that his argument is premised on. Nor has he established any authority connecting Evid.R. 403 to any such duty, and we cannot mint such a connection in this mandamus case. {¶ 25} Because some evidence supports OPERS’s decision and Powell has not established that any evidence should have been excluded from OPERS’s consideration, we conclude that the Tenth District correctly denied the writ.