Temporary Total Cases: Abandonment of Employment

(Supreme Court)

Click on the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court's web site. Decisions which adopt the decision of a lower court or Magistrate, or which decide a case based on a previous decision, are excluded.

Akron Paint & Varnish, Inc., State ex rel. v. Gullotta (2/15/12)

Worker who had abandoned employment and lost eligibility for temporary total did not regain eligibility solely because his condition worsened.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Lundberg Stratton

Baker, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/9/00)

Injured worker who left job of injury to work at a different job retained eligibility for future temporary total.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Justice Douglas

Baker, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/26/00)

Court holds that injured worker who left job of injury voluntary abandoned employment and was not eligible for future temporary total. Note: The Supreme Court granted reconsideration and reversed this decision.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Bilaver, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/10/11)

Worker who quit his job abandoned his employment and was barred from temporary total. There was no evidence that he had taken another job, which would have reinstated his eligibility for temporary total.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Cherryhill Mgt., Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (10/23/07)

Evidence supported Commission's decision that injured worker did not voluntarily abandon their employment.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Cobb, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/23/00)

Temporary total denied where injured worker was fired for violating employer's drug policy. Court holds that discharge constituted voluntary abandonment of employment.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Daniels, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/23/03)

Where employer fired claimant who did not return to work after expiration of medical restriction on working, and who did not contemporaneously file medical documentation to extend disability period, Commission properly terminated temporary total on finding that claimant had abandoned his employment.

Vote: 6-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Durben, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/6/02)

Claimant who leaves job to take another job does not forfeit eligibility for future temporary total.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Eckerly, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/8/05)

Claimant who was fired, and was not working at a later period when he became temporarily and totally disabled was not entitled to temporary total compensation.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Justice Lundberg Stratton

Galligan, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/6/10)

Commission did not abuse its discretion in finding voluntary abandonment based on record indicating employer had notified employee that she would be fired for any future violation of any work rule.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Gross, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/27/07)

When injured worker is terminated for actions which contributed to the injury, worker has not voluntarily abandoned their employment and remains eligible for temporary total.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Lundberg Stratton

Gross, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/27/06)

Worker discharged after ignoring repeated warnings not to engage in prohibited conduct voluntarily abandoned his employment and was not entitled to temporary total. Note: The Supreme Court granted reconsideration and reversed this decision.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Hammer, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/6/03)

Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying temporary total to employee who had been fired for violating written work rule.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Hassan, State ex rel. v. Marsh Bldg. Products (11/26/03)

An injured worker who abandons his employment becomes eligible for temporary total when he returns to part-time work.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Jennings, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/5/03)

Commission properly denied temporary total to worker who was fired for unexcused absenteeism and had never returned to any form of work.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Jones, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/17/00)

Commission denied temporary total based on a previous DHO finding that the injured worker had voluntarily abandoned his employment. Court found that SHO order on appeal had determined that the injured worker had not voluntarily abandoned his employment, even though the injured worker had withdrawn his appeal because he received unemployment compensation.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Jorza, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/21/10)

Court cannot evaluate arguments regarding voluntary abandonment in light of incomplete record and contradictory evidence; therefore, case is returned to Commission for clarifying order.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Lackey, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/29/11)

Commission did not abuse its discretion finding that retirement was unrelated to injury. Because injured worker did not return to job market after retirement, injured worker was not entitled to temporary total.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Luther, State ex rel. v. Ford Motor Co. (4/4/07)

Injured worker does not voluntarily abandon his employment by being fired if he was disabled when fired; additionally, injured worker does not voluntarily abandon employment if reason for discharge (such as absenteeism) was due to the industrial injury.

Vote: 6-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

McCoy, State ex rel. v. Dedicated Transport, Inc. (10/16/02)

Employee remains eligible for temporary total after they voluntarily abandon employment they were doing when injured if they re-enter the work force and their allowed condition causes them to be temporary total.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Justice Resnick

McKnabb, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/22/01)

Injured worker who was fired for violating employer's absentee policy is not barred from receipt of temporary total where policy was not a written policy.

Vote: 4-2, 1 concur in judgment
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Nick Strimbu, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/7/05)

Injured worker who forgot to list an employer on his employment application did not act with intent to deceive required to find that he had made a fraudulent application; therefore, when the employer decided after worker was injured to fire him for submitting a false application in an attempt to avoid paying temporary total, he remained entitled to temporary total because the firing did not constitute a voluntary abandonment of employment.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

OmniSource Corp, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/9/07)

Injured worker who is disabled when fired is not barred from receipt of temporary total; injured worker cannot voluntarily abandon employment unless they were physically capable of performing that employment when fired.

Vote: 6-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Pierron, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (10/15/08)

Worker who retired for reasons unrelated to the industrial injury and did not then seek further employment is barred from temporary total compensation.

Vote: 5-1, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Rademacher, State ex rel. v. Mariott Internatl., Inc. (4/14/04)

Where injured worker had previously been found to have voluntarily abandoned her employment, and had not returned to work, res judicata applies and injured worker is not eligible for additional temporary total.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Reitter Stucco, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/13/08)

Injured worker who voluntarily abandoned their employment does not lose eligibility for temporary total if they were medically incapable of returning to their former position of employment when they voluntarily abandoned their employment.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Reynolds, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (10/16/02)

Commission must reconsider denial of temporary total and determine whether injured worker abandoned job market, in light of Supreme Court decision that temporary total is denied because of leaving employment only where worker abandons job market.

Vote: 5-0, 2 concur in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Saunders, State ex rel. v. Cornerstone Found. Sys., Inc. (8/19/09)

Injured worker who was fired for violation of written work rule did not abandon his employment (which would bar future temporary total compensation) when there was no evidence that he had received written work rule and could not have known that he was violating rule or that violation could lead to dismissal.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Schack, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/26/01)

An injured worker who resigned from the employment they were doing when injured as part of the settlement of a law suit remains eligible for temporary total when they have not abandoned the job market, even though the reason for leaving their job was unrelated to the injury.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Valley Interior Systems, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/12/08)

Termination of employment only constitutes a voluntary abandonment which bars temporary total if injured worker knew or should have known that termination was a possible consequence of worker's actions.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Wagers, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/26/01)

An injured worker who resigned from the employment he was doing when injured because he was eligible for retirement remains eligible for temporary total when they have not abandoned the job market, even though the reason for leaving their job was unrelated to the injury. Wage loss is properly denied where evidence demonstrates that injury did not force injured worker to take lower paying job.

Vote: 5-1, 1 concurs in part and dissents in part
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Williams, State ex rel. v. Coca Cola Ents., Inc. (12/6/06)

Retirement due to a condition which is not work-related bars temporary total.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Temporary Total Cases: Abandonment of Employment

(Supreme Court)

Akron Paint & Varnish, Inc., State ex rel. v. Gullotta (2/15/12)

Worker who had abandoned employment and lost eligibility for temporary total did not regain eligibility solely because his condition worsened.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Lundberg Stratton

Baker, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/9/00)

Injured worker who left job of injury to work at a different job retained eligibility for future temporary total.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Justice Douglas

Baker, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/26/00)

Court holds that injured worker who left job of injury voluntary abandoned employment and was not eligible for future temporary total. Note: The Supreme Court granted reconsideration and reversed this decision.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Bilaver, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/10/11)

Worker who quit his job abandoned his employment and was barred from temporary total. There was no evidence that he had taken another job, which would have reinstated his eligibility for temporary total.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Cherryhill Mgt., Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (10/23/07)

Evidence supported Commission's decision that injured worker did not voluntarily abandon their employment.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Cobb, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/23/00)

Temporary total denied where injured worker was fired for violating employer's drug policy. Court holds that discharge constituted voluntary abandonment of employment.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Daniels, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/23/03)

Vote: 6-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Durben, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/6/02)

Claimant who leaves job to take another job does not forfeit eligibility for future temporary total.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Eckerly, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/8/05)

Claimant who was fired, and was not working at a later period when he became temporarily and totally disabled was not entitled to temporary total compensation.

Vote: 5-2Opinion by: Justice Lundberg Stratton

Galligan, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/6/10)

Commission did not abuse its discretion in finding voluntary abandonment based on record indicating employer had notified employee that she would be fired for any future violation of any work rule.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Gross, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/27/07)

When injured worker is terminated for actions which contributed to the injury, worker has not voluntarily abandoned their employment and remains eligible for temporary total.

Vote: 5-2Opinion by: Lundberg Stratton

Gross, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/27/06)

Worker discharged after ignoring repeated warnings not to engage in prohibited conduct voluntarily abandoned his employment and was not entitled to temporary total. Note: The Supreme Court granted reconsideration and reversed this decision.

Vote: 5-2Opinion by: Per Curiam

Hammer, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/6/03)

Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying temporary total to employee who had been fired for violating written work rule.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Hassan, State ex rel. v. Marsh Bldg. Products (11/26/03)

An injured worker who abandons his employment becomes eligible for temporary total when he returns to part-time work.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Jennings, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/5/03)

Commission properly denied temporary total to worker who was fired for unexcused absenteeism and had never returned to any form of work.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Jones, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/17/00)

Vote: 5-2Opinion by: Per Curiam

Jorza, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/21/10)

Court cannot evaluate arguments regarding voluntary abandonment in light of incomplete record and contradictory evidence; therefore, case is returned to Commission for clarifying order.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Lackey, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/29/11)

Commission did not abuse its discretion finding that retirement was unrelated to injury. Because injured worker did not return to job market after retirement, injured worker was not entitled to temporary total.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Luther, State ex rel. v. Ford Motor Co. (4/4/07)

Injured worker does not voluntarily abandon his employment by being fired if he was disabled when fired; additionally, injured worker does not voluntarily abandon employment if reason for discharge (such as absenteeism) was due to the industrial injury.

Vote: 6-0, 1 concurs in judgment onlyOpinion by: Per Curiam

McCoy, State ex rel. v. Dedicated Transport, Inc. (10/16/02)

Employee remains eligible for temporary total after they voluntarily abandon employment they were doing when injured if they re-enter the work force and their allowed condition causes them to be temporary total.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Justice Resnick

McKnabb, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/22/01)

Injured worker who was fired for violating employer's absentee policy is not barred from receipt of temporary total where policy was not a written policy.

Vote: 4-2, 1 concur in judgmentOpinion by: Per Curiam

Nick Strimbu, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/7/05)

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

OmniSource Corp, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/9/07)

Injured worker who is disabled when fired is not barred from receipt of temporary total; injured worker cannot voluntarily abandon employment unless they were physically capable of performing that employment when fired.

Vote: 6-0, 1 concurs in judgment onlyOpinion by: Per Curiam

Pierron, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (10/15/08)

Worker who retired for reasons unrelated to the industrial injury and did not then seek further employment is barred from temporary total compensation.

Vote: 5-1, 1 concurs in judgment onlyOpinion by: Per Curiam

Rademacher, State ex rel. v. Mariott Internatl., Inc. (4/14/04)

Where injured worker had previously been found to have voluntarily abandoned her employment, and had not returned to work, res judicata applies and injured worker is not eligible for additional temporary total.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Reitter Stucco, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/13/08)

Injured worker who voluntarily abandoned their employment does not lose eligibility for temporary total if they were medically incapable of returning to their former position of employment when they voluntarily abandoned their employment.

Vote: 7-0Opinion by: Per Curiam

Reynolds, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (10/16/02)

Commission must reconsider denial of temporary total and determine whether injured worker abandoned job market, in light of Supreme Court decision that temporary total is denied because of leaving employment only where worker abandons job market.

Vote: 5-0, 2 concur in judgment onlyOpinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Lundberg Stratton

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Justice Douglas

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 6-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Justice Lundberg Stratton

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Lundberg Stratton

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 6-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Justice Resnick

Vote: 4-2, 1 concur in judgment
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 6-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 5-1, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 5-0, 2 concur in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 5-1, 1 concurs in part and dissents in part
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam