Temporary Total Cases: Abandonment of Employment — Miscellaneous (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

Temporary Total: Abandonment of Employment — Miscellaneous

Select the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site. For other issues, see our topic index to Ohio workers’ compensation decisions.

Akron Paint & Varnish, Inc., State ex rel. v. Gullotta (2/15/12)

Worker who had abandoned employment and lost eligibility for temporary total did not regain eligibility solely because his condition worsened.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Lundberg Stratton

Cherryhill Mgt., Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (10/23/07)

Evidence supported Commission’s decision that injured worker did not voluntarily abandon their employment.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Cline, State ex rel. v. Abke Trucking, Inc. (11/27/13)

Although Commission has discretion to determine if injured worker voluntarily abandoned their employment, order denying compensation must contain sufficient explanation of the reason for its decision and the evidence supporting its finding.

Vote: 6-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

David’s Cemetary, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/15/01)

Commission did not abuse discretion by awarding temporary total for certain periods. Fact that claimant quit work does not bar future temporary total. Nor does fact that claimant engaged in other work bar future temporary total when claimant becomes incapable of work.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Hoffman, State ex rel v. Rexam Beverage Can Co. (10/16/13)

Whether injured worker abandoned employment and became ineligible for temporary total is question of fact for Commission to determine. Injured worker has burden of demonstrating their entitlement to temporary total, including the burden of demonstrating that they did not abandon their employment.

Vote: 6-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Jones, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/17/00)

Commission denied temporary total based on a previous DHO finding that the injured worker had voluntarily abandoned his employment. Court found that SHO order on appeal had determined that the injured worker had not voluntarily abandoned his employment, even though the injured worker had withdrawn his appeal because he received unemployment compensation.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Jorza, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/21/10)

Court cannot evaluate arguments regarding voluntary abandonment in light of incomplete record and contradictory evidence; therefore, case is returned to Commission for clarifying order.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Rademacher, State ex rel. v. Mariott Internatl., Inc. (4/14/04)

Where injured worker had previously been found to have voluntarily abandoned her employment, and had not returned to work, res judicata applies and injured worker is not eligible for additional temporary total.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Reitter Stucco, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/13/08)

Injured worker who voluntarily abandoned their employment does not lose eligibility for temporary total if they were medically incapable of returning to their former position of employment when they voluntarily abandoned their employment.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Reynolds, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (10/16/02)

Commission must reconsider denial of temporary total and determine whether injured worker abandoned job market, in light of Supreme Court decision that temporary total is denied because of leaving employment only where worker abandons job market.

Vote: 5-0, 2 concur in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Roxbury, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/15/14)

Commission did not abuse its discretion by finding that injured worker who had neither sought work, or attempted vocational rehabilitation, while capable of working could not receive temporary total when their condition later became disabling because they had voluntarily abandoned the job market.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Schack, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/26/01)

An injured worker who resigned from the employment they were doing when injured as part of the settlement of a law suit remains eligible for temporary total when they have not abandoned the job market, even though the reason for leaving their job was unrelated to the injury.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Wagers, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/26/01)

An injured worker who resigned from the employment he was doing when injured because he was eligible for retirement remains eligible for temporary total when they have not abandoned the job market, even though the reason for leaving their job was unrelated to the injury. Wage loss is properly denied where evidence demonstrates that injury did not force injured worker to take lower paying job.

Vote: 5-1, 1 concurs in part and dissents in part
Opinion by: Per Curiam