Career Change Does Not Bar Wage Loss 

State, ex rel. Ameen v. Indus. Comm. (10/22/03), 100 Ohio St.3d 161,
2003-Ohio-5362:

Issue:  Is an injured worker who cannot return to work at job of injury entitled to WL when injured worker changes careers and earns less?

Background: Ameen was injured while working as a nurse. Ameen was told she would no longer be able to work as a nurse due to the physical restrictions caused by her injury.

Ameen went to college to get a teaching degree. Ameen started working as a teacher ten days after she graduated college. Ameen did not make as much money as a teacher as she had as a nurse. Therefore, she applied for wage loss compensation.

The Commission denied wage loss compensation. The Commission based its denial on a finding that Ameen had voluntarily limited her wages. The Commission recognized that she could not return to her former employment, but felt that she should have sought other nursing jobs and found that she had not made an adequate search for a comparable paying job. The Commission concluded that Ameen's decision to work as a teacher was a lifestyle change.

Ameen filed a mandamus challenge to the Commission's decision. The Court of Appeals upheld the Commission's decision and Ameen appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision: Supreme Court reverses.

Supreme Court disagrees with the Commission's finding that Ameen's decision to change jobs was a lifestyle change, as well as with the Commission's decision that Ameen had not conducted an adequate job search.

The Court states that "[e]mployment that coincides with one's interests, desires, or aptitudes is not inherently suspect."

The Court points out that Ameen was permanently incapable of working as a nurse, and therefore it made sense for her to pursue an alternate career as a teacher.

The Court points out that if Ameen had not accepted the teaching job, she would have received no wages. Yet, had she applied for non-working wage loss she would have probably been denied wage loss compensation because of rejecting the teaching job.

The Court also finds that Ameen was not required to continue a job search after taking the teaching job. The teaching job includes job security, possible raises and possible advancement. Because the teaching job was a legitimate use of her abilities, she was not required to continue a job search and did not forfeit eligibility for wage loss.