SHO’s Consideration of Psychiatrist’s, Physician’s Reports Meets Ohio Standards

Case File

How specific does an Ohio hearing officer need to be to satisfy state law requiring consideration of a worker's psychiatric conditions? The state's top court found that relying on what the doctors said was good enough for one SHO. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

Urban v. Wano Expiditing, Inc., No. 2024-1155 (Ohio 08/26/25)

What Happened

A delivery driver sustained a work-related injury while unloading packages. His workers' compensation claim was allowed for both physical and psychological injuries. In the years that followed, the driver underwent four back surgeries but continued to experience back and leg pain and never returned to work outside the home.

About 15 years after the injury, the driver applied for permanent total disability compensation. A physician who examined the driver concluded that the driver was capable of sedentary work but would "need to the ability to change positions between sitting and standing." A psychiatrist conducted a mental and behavioral examination of the driver, finding that the driver's psychological conditions did not prohibit him from competing "many basic tasks" and that his thinking tended to be concrete.

The psychiatrist opined that the driver would need the following limitations:

+ A position with low stress.

+ The ability to take breaks when feeling overwhelmed.

+ An environment to which the driver could escape.

+ Switching to a task in another area that removed him from the source of the stress.

A staff hearing officer denied the driver's request for PTD compensation, finding that the driver retained capacity to engage in sustained remunerative employment at a sedentary level.

The driver petitioned in court through a writ of mandamus to have the SHO's decision overturned. Initially, a magistrate concluded that the SHO had not abused her discretion, but later, a panel of the court sustained the driver's petition. The panel's majority concluded that the SHO failed to acknowledge in her order the full extent of the driver's psychological limitations and did not consider the driver's psychological conditions in combination with his physical conditions.

The court ordered the commission to vacate its order denying the driver's application for PTD compensation.

The commission appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

In Ohio, PTD must be compensated when the impairment resulting from the employee's injury prevents the employee from engaging in sustained remunerative employment using the employment skills that the employee has or may reasonably be expected to develop.

In claims in which a psychiatric condition has been allowed and the injured worker retains the physical ability to engage in some sustained remunerative employment, the adjudicator shall consider whether the allowed psychiatric condition in combination with the allowed physical condition prevents the injured worker from engaging in sustained remunerative employment.

What the Ohio Supreme Court Said

According to the Ohio Supreme Court, it didn't matter that the parties and the driver's treating psychiatrist described the driver's mental disorders as "psychological conditions," neither of which was defined under the applicable regulations.

"Under any ordinary meaning, [the driver's] mental disorders -- depressive disorder and anxiety disorder -- are psychiatric conditions," the court wrote. "Indeed, a psychiatrist has been treating [the driver]."

The court also found that although the SHO did not cite the applicable administrative rule (Adm. Code 4121-3-34(D)(3)(i)) or quote operative language from it, the content of her order sufficiently established that she considered the driver's psychological conditions in combination with his physical conditions before concluding that he could engage in sustained remunerative employment.

Workers' Comp 101: In Ohio, if a hearing officer determines that a claimant is unable to return to the claimant's former position but may be able to perform other work, the hearing officer must also consider "non-medical factors," including the injured worker's age, his education, his work record, and all other factors contained in the record that might be important in determining whether the injured worker may be able to return to the job market by using past employment skills or those skills that may be reasonably developed. Adm. Code 4121-3-34(D)(2)(b).

The court highlighted:

+ The SHO's order first identified the driver's various physical and psychological conditions and noted that he was found to be at maximum medical improvement of physical conditions.

+ The SHO summarized the reports of the physician and the psychiatrist, noting that the driver could return to work with the limitations specified in both doctors' reports.

"The SHO's reliance on those two reports necessarily shows -- at the very least, implicitly -- that she considered [the driver's] physical and psychological conditions," the court wrote.

Glossary Check: In Ohio, "maximum medical improvement" is defined as "a treatment plateau (static or well-stabilized) at which no fundamental functional or physiological change can be expected within reasonable medical probability in spite of continuing medical or rehabilitative procedures." Adm. Code 4121-3-34(B)(5).

In reaching its decision, the court highlighted precedent cases that guided its decision.

State ex rel. Zollner v. Indus. Comm., No. 92-1753 (05/19/93). After the commission denied a claim for PTD compensation based on an injured worker's allowed physical and psychiatric conditions, he filed a mandamus action arguing that because the commission failed to identify his psychiatric condition in the PTD order, the commission had not properly considered it. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected that argument because in denying the PTD-compensation application, the commission had relied on two medical reports completed by doctors who had evaluated the worker's physical and psychiatric conditions, respectively. By relying on those two reports, the commission "clearly took [the worker]'s psychiatric condition into account in denying [PTD compensation]."

State ex rel. Jackson v. Indus. Comm., No. 95-528 (Ohio 07/23/97). Even though the commission's order identified only one allowed condition, the commission's reliance on medical reports taking into account the injured worker's two allowed conditions "tend[ed] to confirm the commission's appreciation of both claims."

In the driver's case, the court noted that relying on the reports from a doctor who opined on the driver's physical restrictions and one who opined on his psychological restrictions provided "sufficient assurance that the SHO consider [the driver's] psychological conditions in combination with his physical conditions in reaching her ultimate decision."

Verdict: The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and dnied the driver's writ of mandamus.

Takeaway

Even without specifically mentioning a worker's psychiatric condition, an Ohio staff hearing officer's reliance on a psychiatrist's reports is sufficient to show that the SHO complied with state law.

Share This Article: