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:

SITUATION: The Ohio Supreme Court on January 26, 2000, initially ruled in this case that Baker was not entitled to TT 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 TT.

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 TT 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 TT starting September 24, 1990. He was denied TT 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.

STATUS: On reconsideration, the Ohio Supreme Court decided that Baker was entitled to TT.

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 TT 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 TT 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 TT) by saying in Jones & Laughlin the individual had voluntarily abandoned the work force.

The Court says the purpose of TT 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 TT. Baker II makes the first inroad into this method of precluding TT.

What is the purpose of TT? Is it to compensate for loss of income or is it to compensate for medical inability to do the former job?

To read more about the initial decision in this case, click here.

Click on the case name to view the  decision on the Supreme Court's web site.