Posted: September, 1996
Wage Loss Denial Reversed
State, ex rel. McGonegle v. Indus. Comm. (8/7/96), 76 Ohio St.3d 272.Issue: Does an employer's decision to fire an injured worker break the causal connection between the wage loss and the injury resulting in denial of wage loss compensation?
Background: McGonegle was exposed to heated caustic soda solution used to clean component parts of printing presses and developed breathing problems, including severe coughing attacks, due to the exposure. On October 18, 1986 he went to a hospital emergency room because of the coughing. He had been scheduled to work that day.
The company, using its policy on tardiness and absenteeism, assigned him a "point" due to the absence. He was then fired for excessive tardiness and absenteeism. His unemployment compensation was awarded on a finding that he was discharged without just cause.
In March 1988 he filed a workers' compensation claim for industrial bronchitis and his claim was allowed. In 1989 he filed for wage loss. The company had McGonegle examined by Dr. D who reported that the exposure caused the industrial bronchitis but that McGonegle at the time of the examination (August 1, 1988) was not "suffering from any residual pulmonary deficit." The doctor indicated that McGonegle could not return to his former employment. He said that McGonegle should not return as a "preventative measure" so as not to make the susceptibility worse or to cause redevelopment.
The DHO denied wage loss on the basis of the firing and the lack of medical evidence because Dr. D said that McGonegle "no longer suffers from the condition". McGonegle lost in the administrative process. The Court of Appeals ruled against him on his mandamus, finding that the medical evidence supported the denial by the Industrial Commission.
Decision: Ohio Supreme Court reverses (unanimously).
Court says the Commission denied wage loss because there was no causal relationship to the wages lost as he was fired for absenteeism and the condition had resolved itself. Court rules that these are invalid reasons to deny. It looks to State, ex rel. Watts v. Schottenstein Stores (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 118 for the principle that firing "is not a determinative factor to be considered in a wage loss claim." Wage loss is not tied to the "continued possibility of future employment" at the job where the injury occurred. It points out that the medical evidence demonstrates McGonegle could not have returned to his former position, regardless of the firing.
Court looks to McGonegle's medical condition and says it manifests itself "only when he is exposed to caustic soda." The medical evidence shows he can't return to his former work because of the unacceptable link of the exposure. The medical evidence on which the Industrial Commission relied reveals that his allowed condition "prohibits a return to his former position."
Editor’s Comment: Will it be a decade from the time the motion for wage loss was filed in 1988 to the time he finally receives wage loss compensation?
This information was provided courtesy
of the Ohio
Workers'
Compensation Bulletin. Click on the case name to
view this decision on
the Supreme Court's web site.