| The following
information is provided courtesy of the Ohio Workers'
Compensation Bulletin. For information about the Bulletin
click
here.
Abandonment
Does Not Bar Temporary Total After Return To Work
State
ex rel. McCoy v. Dedicated Transport, Inc. (2002), 97
Ohio St.3d 25, 2002-Ohio-5305:
Issue: When
does voluntary abandonment of the job an injured worker was doing when
injured
bar the injured worker from receipt of temporary total?
Background: The Supreme Court
consolidated
two cases where temporary total was denied to injured workers because
they
had voluntarily abandoned the job they had been doing when injured.
In the first case, McCoy returned to work after his
injury
and was later fired for tardiness and insubordination. In the
second
case, Brandgard was fired when a drug test conducted after his injury
came
back with a positive result.
Both workers were denied temporary total on the basis
that
they had "voluntarily abandoned" their jobs. Both workers
challenged
the denial of temporary total by filing a complaint for a writ of
mandamus
in the Court of Appeals. Both workers lost in the Court of
Appeals.
Decision: Supreme Court affirms
(7-0).
The key holding of this case is contained in the Court's
syllabus:
A claimant who voluntarily abandoned his or her former
position
of employment or who was fired under circumstances that amount to a
voluntary
abandonment of the former position will be eligible to receive
temporary
total disability compensation pursuant to R.C. 4123.56 if he or she
reenters
the work force and, due to the original industrial injury, becomes
temporarily
and totally disabled while working at his or her new job.
Applying this test to the facts of each case, the Court
finds
that because neither of these employees had yet returned to the job
market,
neither was entitled to temporary total.
Editor's Comment: This
case is significant because it makes it clear that an individual who
returns
to the job market is eligible for temporary total, even if they had
previously
been barred from temporary total due to the "voluntary abandonment"
doctrine.
This case also contains a good summary and discussion of
the
history and development of the application of the "voluntary
abandonment"
doctrine to bar temporary total.
Is the "abandonment doctrine" necessary or
appropriate?
This case at least make it clear that a return to work washes out the
previous
"abandonment." What happens if the injured worker quits or is
fired
and, before he/she can return to work, the injury acts up and the
person
needs surgery? Normally, the surgery would put the person back on
TT.
Why should it be any different because he/she left the employer of
injury
or was fired by the employer of injury?
There is no statute requiring that TT not be paid
in
these situations. This is a Court created doctrine that ends up
punishing
the worker because that worker left the job of injury.
Click on the case name
to view the decision on
the Supreme
Court's web site.
|