Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Ohio Ex Rel. Bret M. Barber v. Industrial Commission of Ohio and Mental Retardation & Dev[Elopmental] Disab[Ilities]

November 15, 2011

STATE OF OHIO EX REL. BRET M. BARBER, RELATOR,
v.
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO AND MENTAL RETARDATION & DEV[ELOPMENTAL] DISAB[ILITIES], GALLIPOLIS DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER, RESPONDENTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: French, J.

Cite as State ex rel. Barber v. Indus. Comm.,

(REGULAR CALENDAR)

DECISION

IN MANDAMUS ON OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION

{¶1} Relator, Bret M. Barber ("relator"), filed this original action, which asks this court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission"), to vacate its order that denied relator's request for authorization of a thoracic MRI and to enter an order granting that request.

{¶2} This matter was referred to a magistrate pursuant to Civ.R. 53(C) and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The magistrate issued a decision, which includes findings of fact and conclusions of law and is appended to this decision, recommending that this court deny the requested writ. No objections were submitted concerning the magistrate's findings of fact, and we adopt them as our own.

I. BACKGROUND

{¶3} In brief, relator suffered a work-related injury in June 2006. The claim was allowed for an open wound of the left wrist, contusion of the back, and sprain of the neck, thoracic region, and lumbar region. Relator received treatment for his injuries.

{¶4} Relator sought chiropractic care in March 2010. Richard E. Thompson, D.C., completed a C-9 requesting authorization for "Thoracic MRI For Diagnostic Purpose." The employer's managed care organization ("MCO") denied the request, but thereafter obtained a review by Todd Conley, D.C. Dr. Conley concluded that the requested MRI was not related to the original injuries, which were self-limiting, and was "not reasonably necessary for any of the allowed conditions of this 2006 claim."

{¶5} Relying on Dr. Conley's report, a district hearing officer denied relator's request to authorize the MRI, and a staff hearing officer affirmed. As noted, relator filed this mandamus action, and the magistrate recommended that we deny the request for a writ.

II. RELATOR'S OBJECTION

{¶6} Relator filed an objection to the magistrate's decision. In it, relator contends the following: " 'Contrary to the magistrate's finding, there is no evidence relied upon by the commission in denying the requested diagnostic MRI that properly considered or employed [Ohio Adm.Code] 4123-6-31(F).' " We disagree.

{¶7} As the magistrate explained, the commission relied on Dr. Conley's report to deny the request for authorization of an MRI under Ohio Adm.Code 4123-6-31(F) because it was not medically necessary. In his report, Dr. Conley concluded that the request for an MRI was not reasonable. Specifically, it was not related to the 2006 claim or the allowed injuries, given the passage of time and the self-limiting nature of the allowed conditions. Because Dr. Conley's report was some evidence upon which the commission could rely, the commission did not abuse its discretion by denying relator's request. Therefore, we overrule relator's objection.

III. CONCLUSION

{¶8} In conclusion, based on our independent review, we adopt the magistrate's decision, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law, contained in it, as our own. Accordingly, we deny the requested writ.

Objection overruled; writ of mandamus denied.

BRYANT, P.J., and CONNOR, J., concur.

A P P E N D I X

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

State of Ohio ex rel. Bret M. Barber, Relator, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio and Mental Retardation & Dev[elopmental] Disab[ilities], Gallipolis Developmental Center, Respondents.

No. 10AP-912

(REGULAR ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.