An Ohio worker had their claim suspended based on their refusal to undergo psychological testing. An appellate court ruled that the Ohio Industrial Commission did not err when they suspended his claim initially.

Richard Calhoun worked for Lincoln Electric Holding, a self-insured employer. He was injured in 2000 with a lumbar sprain, thoracic/lumbar disc displacement. He was examined by a psychologist in 2017 who determined Calhoun was suffering from major depressive disorder that was related to his injury and his psychologist recommended counseling. Calhoun sought benefits for this psychological condition under his initial claim for his back injury. His employer denied his claim and scheduled him for an examination with a different psychologist, Dr. Kaplan. He attended the diagnostic clinical interview part of the appointment but refused psychological testing. Dr. Kaplan testified that it was very rare for patients to refuse psychological testing, and said it was a routine part of his psychological exams. His employer moved for suspension of his claim.

Calhoun argued that he had the right to decline participating in significant portions of the psychological testing, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 test (MMPI) which is widely used, based on the Industrial Commission’s medical examination manual. It reads that “MMPI and Bender-Gestaldt are considered part of a psychological exam and are not billable. Injured Worker may decline testing, and if this is the case, note the refusal and base opinions on the available data.”

The Commission determined the manual was not binding on Bureau of Workers’ Compensation doctors or employer’s doctors, it was not a guideline for Industrial Commission specialists. It suspended the claim.

The appellate court said that the issue was not whether he had the right to refuse psychological testing, but rather if he had good cause to refuse. That would have prevented the suspension of his claim, but the court decided he did not have good cause. The test was not physically intrusive, and no medical or psychological evidence was submitted that would refute the benefits of the MMPI test for Calhoun. He had no other argument for why he had refused and so the appellate court held that the suspension of the claim was required during this period of refusal.

Read the case here.