Posted: March, 2000; Updated: April, 2001
Temporary Total Denied when Injured Worker had Terminated Employment with Employer of Injury
State, ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm. (1/26/00), 87 Ohio St.3d 561.NOTE: The Supreme Court granted reconsideration in this case by a 4-3 vote, and issued a new decision which holds that an injured worker remains eligible for temporary total after leaving the job they had been doing when injured to work at a different job. The following decision has no effect, because of the Supreme Court's decision on reconsideration.
Issue: Has an injured worker abandoned his employment and forfeited temporary total eligibility when he leaves the job he was performing when injured for a different job?
Background: Baker was injured in 1989. He was released to return to light duty on July 15, 1990.
On the next day he signed a termination notice with his employer of injury, Stahl-Wooster Division ("S-W") stating that the reason for termination was that he had accepted other employment. He began his new job which had the same physical demands as a light duty job at S-W.
He worked until September 24, 1990 at the new job. He then had surgery because of his industrial injury. The surgery was paid for in his industrial claim. He filed for temporary total from September 24, 1990 through April 14, 1999.
The Commission denied temporary total, finding that Baker had voluntarily abandoned his position of employment when he terminated his employment at S-W and returned to work for a different employer in a job requiring about the same physical activities. Baker filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus. Court of Appeals denied writ.
Decision: Supreme Court affirms (7-0) denial of mandamus.
Court cites State, ex rel. McGraw v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 137, which held that a claimant who chooses to leave the former position of employment for reasons unrelated to the industrial injury forfeits temporary total eligibility.
Court refuses to overrule McGraw. Court also refuses to find that Baker's departure from S-W was injury-induced. Court says the new job had the same physical demands. Baker also argued that the plant manager at S-W made comments that made him believe his job was in jeopardy while he was originally off on temporary total. Court says only the Commission can evaluate credibility. Commission's conclusion that he voluntarily abandoned his job is upheld.
Editor’s Comment: A motion for reconsideration has been filed.
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.