Posted: September, 2000
Temporary Total Eligibility Maintained where Injured Worker
Returns to Work at a Different Job
State, ex rel. Baker v. Indus.
Comm. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 376.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: The Ohio Supreme Court on January 26, 2000, initially ruled in this case that Baker was not entitled to temporary total because he had abandoned his position of employment with Stahl-Wooster by accepting new employment. He had quit the employer of injury and was working for a different employer when his condition worsened and he became unable to work. The Court granted a motion for rehearing; heard oral argument and, on reconsideration issued a different ruling, permitting payment of temporary total.
Baker's claim was allowed for a lateral tear meniscus, left knee. He worked as a general laborer for Stahl-Wooster. He had arthroscopic surgery on January 9, 1990 and May 4, 1990 and was paid temporary total from January 9, 1990 to July 15, 1990, when he was released to return to full time work, restricted to light duty.
On July 16, 1990, he went to his employer, Stahl-Wooster, and signed a termination notice stating that he had accepted other employment. He went to work as a truck mechanic for Truck Stops of America.
On September 24, 1990, he stopped working at Truck Stops due to his original injury. Baker requested temporary total starting September 24, 1990. He was denied temporary total in the administrative process because he had voluntarily abandoned his position of employment with Stahl-Wooster. Baker filed a mandamus suit in the Court of Appeals and that court denied mandamus.
Decision: On reconsideration, the Ohio Supreme Court decided that Baker was entitled to temporary total.
He was not disqualified because he left his former position of employment to take a new job elsewhere. The Court looks to R.C. 4123.56 and notes that it ties eligibility for temporary total to the worker's capacity to return to his former position of employment. Court says that standard "former position of employment" is a "threshold physical measurement of whether an injured worker" is capable of doing the job at which he was injured. Court observes:
A worker's physical capabilities are unrelated to whether the worker is actually working at his former position of employment and whether the former position is even available for the injured worker to return to after he is medically released.Eligibility for temporary total is determined by the worker's ability to do the work required by the former position of employment.
Editor’s Comment: Court contrasts this case with Jones & Laughlin, 29 Ohio App.3d 145 (employee voluntarily retires and then files for temporary total) by saying in Jones & Laughlin the individual had voluntarily abandoned the work force.
The Court says the purpose of temporary total is to compensate for loss of income; therefore, by voluntarily retiring the worker would no longer have a loss of income.
The Jones & Laughlin case started this whole voluntary abandonment approach to denying temporary total. Baker II makes the first inroad into this method of precluding temporary total.
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.