State v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 07ap-115 (6-10-2008)

2008 Ohio 2796
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 10, 2008
DocketNo. 07AP-115.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 2008 Ohio 2796 (State v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 07ap-115 (6-10-2008)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 07ap-115 (6-10-2008), 2008 Ohio 2796 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

DECISION
{¶ 1} Relator, Sharon A. Morgan, commenced this original action in mandamus seeking an order compelling respondent, State Teachers Retirement Board of Ohio ("STRB"), to vacate its decision terminating her disability retirement benefit pursuant to R.C. 3307.64, and to enter a decision reinstating the disability retirement benefit. *Page 2

{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ. R. 53 and Loc. R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, this matter was referred to a magistrate who issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law. (Attached as Appendix A.) The magistrate found that STRB abused its discretion when it relied on Dr. Wolfe's reports to terminate relator's disability retirement benefit. Essentially, the magistrate determined that because it is unclear whether Dr. Wolfe actually examined the relator for the conditions at issue, Dr. Wolfe's reports were not some evidence supporting the STRB's decision. Therefore, the magistrate has recommended that we issue a writ of mandamus vacating STRB's decision terminating relator's disability retirement benefit, and further ordering STRB to decide whether or not relator is entitled to a disability retirement benefit without considering Dr. Wolfe's reports.

{¶ 3} STRB filed objections to the magistrate's decision arguing that the magistrate substituted his judgment for that of STRB in rejecting Dr. Wolfe's reports. Contrary to the magistrate's conclusion, STRB contends that Dr. Wolfe accepted that relator suffers from possible "fibromyalgia syndrome with chronic fatigue/versus somatoform disorder," but nevertheless, concluded that these conditions were not disabling in this case. Therefore, STRB argues that it did not abuse its discretion when it relied on Dr. Wolfe's reports in terminating relator's disability retirement benefit. We agree.

{¶ 4} Essentially, we disagree with the magistrate's characterization of Dr. Wolfe's reports. There is no indication that Dr. Wolfe refused to examine relator for the conditions that allegedly caused the disability. Although Dr. Wolfe noted that the diagnosis of relator's conditions was based primarily on subjective symptoms, she *Page 3 expressly acknowledged the conditions in her reports. Nevertheless, Dr. Wolfe concluded that, based on the objective findings, relator should be able to continue to work as a librarian. In essence, Dr. Wolfe simply did not believe that relator's subjective symptoms prevented relator from working as a librarian. Contrary to the magistrate's conclusions of law, we find that STRB did not abuse its discretion by relying on Dr. Wolfe's reports. Therefore, we sustain STRB's objection.

{¶ 5} Relator also filed an objection to the magistrate's decision arguing that the magistrate should have reinstated her disability retirement benefit because without Dr. Wolfe's reports, there is no legal basis to terminate her retirement benefit. Because we have found that STRB did not abuse its discretion when it based its termination of relator's disability retirement benefit on Dr. Wolfe's reports, we overrule relator's objection.

{¶ 6} Following an independent review of this matter, we adopt the magistrate's findings of fact as our own, but not the magistrate's conclusions of law. For the reasons discussed above, we deny the relator's request for a writ of mandamus.

Respondents' objections sustained; relator's objection overruled; andwrit of mandamus denied.

SADLER and FRENCH, JJ., concur. *Page 4
APPENDIX A
MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
Rendered on January 25, 2008
IN MANDAMUS
{¶ 7} In this original action, relator, Sharon A. Morgan, requests a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, State Teachers Retirement Board of Ohio ("STRB"), to vacate its decision terminating a disability retirement benefit pursuant to R.C. 3307.64 and to enter a decision reinstating the disability retirement benefit. *Page 5

Findings of Fact:

{¶ 8} 1. In December 1987, relator filed a disability retirement application with the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio ("STRS"). Relator had been employed as a librarian by the North Ridgeville City Schools.

{¶ 9} 2. Attending physician Thomas E. Williams, M.D., certified on an STRS form dated January 13, 1988, that relator was incapacitated for the performance of her duty. The STRS form asks the attending physician to list "Major Symptoms" and to give a "Diagnosis." For the former, Dr. Williams wrote:

Periodic extreme fatigue, muscle aches spasms, lymph-adenopathy, recurrent low grade temperature elevation, headaches, lightheadedness, abdomenal [sic] discomfort due to flatulence and intermittent diarrhea, palpitations, and a periodic skin rash.

{¶ 10} For the latter, Dr. Williams wrote: "Chronic Systemic Viral Syndrome."

{¶ 11} Dr. Williams further indicated that relator's incapacity was not permanent, but that reasonable recovery may be expected within "12-36" months.

{¶ 12} 3. Relator's application prompted STRS to have relator examined by Richard Graham, M.D., an infectious disease specialist. Following a February 25, 1988 examination, Dr. Graham wrote:

[Patient] states she was well until 2/4 when she had a "flulike" illness (fever, myalgias, [lymphadenopathy], diarrhea)[.] She felt somewhat better after 2 ½ weeks but subsequently has continued to have intermittent severe fatigue as well as periodic rash, lymphadenopathy, + low grade fever. Symptoms tend to be worsened by exertion + stress.

* * *

EXAMINATIONS BY SYSTEMS:

Shotty anterior cervical lymphadenopathy. Exam otherwise without significant abnormalities.

*Page 6

DIAGNOSIS AND SUMMARY OF PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CONDITIONS:

Ms. Morgan, by history, meets the case definition of the chronic fatigue syndrome, as recently proposed (Holmes, GP, et al., Ann Intern Med 108: 387, 1988)[.] Although her EBV antibody profiles do not provide unequivocal evidence for ongoing viral activity, the above definition does not require this for the diagnosis.

{¶ 13} 4. On an STRS form, Dr. Graham certified that relator is incapacitated for the performance of her duty and that the disability is considered to be permanent or presumed to be permanent (12 continuous months) and that she should be retired, adding in his own hand "until such time as substantial recovery has occurred."

{¶ 14} 5. Relator's application also prompted STRS to have relator examined by John D. Condon, M.D., who specializes in internal medicine. Following a June 6, 1988 examination, Dr. Condon wrote:

CHIEF COMPLAINTS AND HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS:

The patient is a 39-year-old white female who has had persistent fatigue, drowsiness and weakness for over 2 years.

In 1/86 she had laryngitis, was treated with antibiotics and about 2 weeks later developed a severe flu-like syndrome.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State ex rel. Morgan v. State Teachers Retirement Board
904 N.E.2d 506 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2008 Ohio 2796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-state-teachers-retirement-bd-of-ohio-07ap-115-6-10-2008-ohioctapp-2008.