The Akron Legal News

Court rules doctor's report sufficient in job injury case

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: June 27, 2013

The 10th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed that a man is entitled to compensation for the loss of use of his right arm after he injured the limb during the course of his employment with the Ohio Department of Transportation.

The 3-0 ruling stated the Industrial Commission of Ohio properly relied on a doctor’s report concerning Douglas Stegall’s arm strength when granting him scheduled loss compensation.

Stegall injured his arm while working as a highway technician for ODOT in January 2010.

He underwent surgery the following month to repair a tendon in his right elbow that ruptured in the accident, case summary states.

In July 2011, Howard Pinsky examined Stegall and found that his “condition is static and he has achieved no benefit from past program of occupational and physical therapy.”

Pinsky issued a report saying he believed Stegall had reached maximum medical improvement and would not be a good candidate for vocational rehabilitation.

“I do not believe that the injured worker can return to his/her former position of employment. I believe that he has significant restriction and limitation in the use of the right arm,” Pinsky wrote in his report.

Based on that report, Stegall moved for scheduled loss compensation for the loss of use of his right arm and the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation ordered another physician, Douglas Gula, to examine him.

Gula submitted a report with a list of Stegall’s symptoms, physical condition and responses to included questions from the bureau.

The doctor noted that Stegall was a healthy 52-year-old man, but stated that there was evidence of a limited range of motion and weakness for his right elbow.

“Thus, based upon the medical records reviewed and the independent medical evaluation, the allowed injury has resulted in total permanent loss of use to such degree that the affected party is useless for all practical purposes,” Gula wrote in his report.

The bureau awarded Stegall compensation by an ordered issued in November 2011.

The order specifically cited Gula’s report as the basis for its conclusion.

ODOT appealed the order and requested that Stegall be examined by Kevin Trangle.

Trangle reported that Stegall could still move his arm enough to clothe himself and stated that he believed Stegall could regain the use of his arm through occupational therapy, adaptive technology and assisting devices.

The district hearing officer ruled Gula’s report was enough evidence to grant Stegall’s compensation request.

A staff hearing officer affirmed that decision and granted Stegall injured-worker compensation for 225 weeks.

In May 2012, ODOT filed a request for a writ of mandamus in the 10th District Court of Appeals.

In its request, the department asked the court to order the industrial commission to vacate it’s award.

It argued that Gula’s report did not detail his findings regarding the extent of Stegall’s weakness or limited range of motion and did not encompass all of Stegall’s right arm.

The matter was referred to 10th District Court of Appeals Magistrate Kenneth Macke.

“Relator’s argument might be persuasive if Dr. Gula’s reported clinical findings are restricted to what can be found in the paragraph captioned ‘Physical Exam.’ But that is clearly not the case in reviewing Dr. Gula’s report,” Macke stated in his report for the court.

Macke found Gula reported his significant clinical findings in other areas of his report, including descriptions of “significant weakness with regards to grip and pinch” and limited motion in Stegall’s fingers on his right hand.

“Contrary to relator’s assertion here, a careful reading of Dr. Gula’s report clearly shows that Dr. Gula assessed the entire right arm. Accordingly, that challenge to Dr. Gula’s report lacks merit,” Macke wrote.

ODOT further contended Gula’s report could not be used as evidence because it was internally inconsistent.

It cited a section of the report “jumping” from a finding concerning the right elbow to the “entire right upper extremity.”

Again, Macke found that other sections of the report properly explained Gula’s findings. He ruled that the argument was without merit and dismissed it.

“Based upon the foregoing analysis, the magistrate concludes that the report of Dr. Gula provides some evidence to support the commission’s award of scheduled loss compensation.

“Accordingly, it is the magistrate’s decision that this court deny relator’s request for a writ of mandamus,” Macke concluded.

ODOT did not file any objections to Macke’s findings and the three-judge panel accepted them.

“Finding no error of law or other defect in the magistrate’s decision, we adopt the decision as our own including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in it. In accordance with the magistrate’s decision, we deny the requested writ,” retired 10th District Judge John McCormac wrote for the court.

Fellow 10th District judges Lisa Sadler and John Connor joined McCormac to form the majority.

The case is cited State ex rel. Ohio Dept. of Transp. v. Stegall, case No. 2013-Ohio-2452.

[Back]