State ex rel. Teachers Retirement Bd.
| Decision Date | 06 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007-1495.,2007-1495. |
| Parties | The STATE ex rel. ACKERMAN, Appellant, v. STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT BOARD, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
DelBene, LaPolla & Thomas and Daniel P. Thomas, Warren, for appellant.
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and John E. Patterson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying a writ of mandamus to compel appellee, State Teachers Retirement Board of Ohio, to reinstate the disability-retirement benefits of appellant, Edward Joseph Ackerman, and to pay those benefits from the date that the retirement board terminated them. Because the retirement board did not abuse its discretion in terminating Ackerman's disability-retirement benefits, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
{¶ 2} The Warren City Schools in Trumbull County, Ohio, employed Ackerman as a special-education teacher for over 18 years. Ackerman stopped teaching in February 1989, and he filed an application for disability-retirement benefits the next month with the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio. In his application, Ackerman described his claimed disability as follows:
{¶ 3}
{¶ 4} Robert T. Brodell, M.D., Ackerman's treating physician, diagnosed "Staph aureus blepharitis and carrier state with resistance to multiple antibiotics."1 Ackerman was later examined by several physicians, who concurred in his attending physician's diagnosis of blepharitis. The medical review board of the retirement system recommended that the retirement board deny Ackerman's application for disability-retirement benefits based on the review board's conclusion that Ackerman was not permanently incapacitated for the performance of his duties as a teacher. The review board concluded that additional therapy should be allowed and that he be reevaluated in six months. One of the doctors had suggested that corrective eyelid surgery would help correct Ackerman's problems.
{¶ 5} Ackerman then sent a memorandum to the retirement system in which he argued that under Ohio Adm.Code 3307-1-15, the retirement board could not delay disability retirement in order for a claimant to receive surgery. Shortly thereafter, in March 1990, the retirement board approved Ackerman's application for disability-retirement benefits. Until 2005, the chair of the medical review board certified Ackerman's disability as ongoing. In May 2005, the retirement system requested that Ackerman provide an update on his medical condition and notified him that a reexamination by an independent medical examiner might be required.
{¶ 6} On October 28, 2005, at the request of the retirement board, Dr. Harvey Lester, an ophthalmologist, examined Ackerman. In a January 2006 report, Dr. Lester certified that Ackerman, because of his disability, "is not capable of resuming regular full-time service similar to that from which he * * * retired and that disability benefits should be continued." Responding to a board questionnaire, Dr. Lester noted that he presumed Ackerman's disability to be permanent.
{¶ 7} Nevertheless, Dr. Lester specified that although he did not consider Ackerman to be totally and permanently disabled based on his medical examination, he felt that it was not reasonable to expect Ackerman to return to his teaching duties after being on disability retirement for so long:
{¶ 8} "Mr. Ackerman was examined on October 28, 2005. At the time of examination, Mr. Ackerman stated that he does not wear glasses. His eyes are dry and irritated. He has tried numerous medications for dryness with limited improvement. His eyelids are somewhat inflamed and he uses lid scrubs and frequent topical antibiotics for chronic blepharitis. He has recently been diagnosed with diabetes mellitus which is well controlled on oral medications.
{¶ 9} "The eyes were minimally inflamed though[ ] somewhat dry at the time of examination. Schirmer test with anesthetic was 15 mm. in both eyes. The corneas and anterior segments were clear and pupils reacted well directly and consensually. Best corrected vision was 20/50 in the right eye and 20/40 in the left eye. The refraction was + 1.00-1.00 × 83 in the right eye and + 1.25-1.50 × 90 in the left eye. Cup disc ratios were within normal limits, intraocular pressure was 20 mm and fundus examination with 2.5% neosynephrine was within normal limits. Confrontation field was full.
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} Thereafter, the members of the medical review board reviewed the case to determine whether Ackerman was capable of returning to teaching. Dr. Edwin H. Season noted that Dr. Lester "diagnosed no significant ophthalmologic condition and felt Mr. Ackerman was not totally and permanently disabled." Dr. Season recommended termination of disability-retirement benefits based on Dr. Lester's report and the previous medical information. Dr. Barry Friedman concluded that Ackerman "is not disabled for the performance of his previous duties" after noting that Dr. Lester had concluded that he would not consider Ackerman to be totally and permanently disabled based on his examination. Dr. Charles Wooley also concluded that Ackerman "is not permanently incapacitated and is capable of returning to contributing service." Dr. Earl N. Metz, the chair of the medical review board, then advised the retirement board that the medical review board "concurs with the opinion of the appointed examiner and recommends that disability benefits be terminated." In May 2006, the retirement board approved the medical review board's recommendation and terminated Ackerman's disability-retirement benefits effective August 31, 2006. Ackerman appealed the retirement board's decision pursuant to Ohio Adm. Code 3307:1-7-05.
{¶ 12} In June 2006, the medical review board requested that Dr. Lester clarify his previous conclusion "as to whether the medical findings indicate [that Ackerman] is physically capable of performing the duties of his teaching position." Dr. Lester again certified that Ackerman's disability-retirement benefits should be continued, but he again failed to specify any objective medical findings to support that opinion.
{¶ 13} In August 2006, the medical review board ordered that Ackerman be examined by Dr. Steven Katz, an ophthalmologist, in connection with Ackerman's appeal of the retirement board's termination of his disability-retirement benefits. Ackerman refused to submit to the additional examination. In October 2006, the retirement board unanimously upheld its previous decision to terminate Ackerman's disability-retirement benefits.
{¶ 14} Shortly thereafter, Ackerman filed an action in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County for a writ of mandamus to compel the retirement board to reinstate his disability-retirement benefits from the termination of his employment and to continue payment of these benefits in the future. After the parties filed evidence and briefs, the court of appeals denied the writ.
{¶ 15} This cause is now before the court upon Ackerman's appeal as of right. Mandamus
{¶ 16} Ackerman asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the requested writ of mandamus to compel the retirement board to reinstate his disability-retirement benefits. Because there is no right to appeal from the retirement board's final decision under R.C. 3307.64 terminating disability-retirement benefits, mandamus is available to correct an abuse of discretion by the board in its determination. State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327, 2002-Ohio-2219, 767 N.E.2d 719, ¶ 14, and cases cited therein ("The determination by [the State Teachers Retirement System] and its retirement board [the State Teachers Retirement Board] 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"). "An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." State ex rel. Stiles v. School Emps. Retirement Sys., 102 Ohio St.3d 156, 2004-Ohio-2140, 807 N.E.2d 353, ¶ 13.
{¶ 17} Ackerman contends that the retirement board abused its discretion by terminating his disability-retirement benefits because it violated R.C. 3307.64 by convening a panel of the medical review board after Dr. Lester found that Ackerman was incapacitated, because it attempted to persuade Dr. Lester to reconsider his opinion after the retirement board had initially decided to terminate Ackerman's disability-retirement benefits, and because it ordered Ackerman to be reexamined after its termination of his disability-retirement benefits.
{¶ 18} R.C. 3307.64 authorizes the termination of a recipient's disability-retirement benefits following a medical examination:
{¶ 19} ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Castle v. State Teachers Ret. Sys.
...correct an abuse of discretion committed by the retirement board in making its decision.” Id., citing State ex rel. Ackerman v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 117 Ohio St.3d 268, 2008-Ohio-863, 883 N.E.2d 445, ¶ 16. “An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, ......
- State v. Fugate
-
State ex rel. Ewart v. State Teachers Ret. Sys. Bd. of Ohio
...v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund , 131 Ohio St.3d 111, 2012-Ohio-46, 961 N.E.2d 178, ¶ 9, and State ex rel. Ackerman v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. , 117 Ohio St.3d 268, 2008-Ohio-863, 883 N.E.2d 445, ¶ 22. Specifically, the neurologist in Riddell first concluded that relator should be ......
-
State ex rel. Morgan v. State Teachers Retirement
...mandamus is available to correct an abuse of discretion by the retirement board in its decision. State ex rel. Ackerman v. State Teachers Retirement Bd., 117 Ohio St.3d 268, 2008-Ohio-863, 883 N.E.2d 445, ¶ 16. "An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or un......