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

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

Temporary Total: Abandonment of Employment — Termination

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.

Brown, State ex rel. v. Hoover Universal, Inc. (8/30/12)

Commission must examine “the totality of the circumstances” when making a decision involving a claim that an injured worker abandoned their employment when the employer fired them for violating a written work rule because the abandonment doctrine creates potential for abuse.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Cobb, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/23/00)

Temporary total denied where injured worker was fired for violating employer’s drug policy. Court holds that discharge constituted voluntary abandonment of employment.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Cordell, State ex rel. v. Pallet Cos., Inc. (12/29/16)

Injured worker who is fired after the injury for conduct which occurred before the injury (and which is unrelated to the injury) has not abandoned their employment and remains entitled to temporary total if the reason they were fired was discovered due to the injury and they were medically unable to work at the time they were fired.

Vote: 4-2, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: O’Neill

Daniels, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/23/03)

Where employer fired claimant who did not return to work after expiration of medical restriction on working, and who did not contemporaneously file medical documentation to extend disability period, Commission properly terminated temporary total on finding that claimant had abandoned his employment.

Vote: 6-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Eckerly, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/8/05)

Claimant who was fired, and was not working at a later period when he became temporarily and totally disabled was not entitled to temporary total compensation.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Justice Lundberg Stratton

Galligan, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/6/10)

Commission did not abuse its discretion in finding voluntary abandonment based on record indicating employer had notified employee that she would be fired for any future violation of any work rule.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Gross, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/27/07)

When injured worker is terminated for actions which contributed to the injury, worker has not voluntarily abandoned their employment and remains eligible for temporary total.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Lundberg Stratton

Gross, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/27/06)

Worker discharged after ignoring repeated warnings not to engage in prohibited conduct voluntarily abandoned his employment and was not entitled to temporary total. Note: The Supreme Court granted reconsideration and reversed this decision.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Haddox, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/12/13)

Injured worker discharged for conduct which caused injury did not “voluntarily” abandon his employment and therefore remained eligible for temporary total compensation.

Vote: 3-3, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Hammer, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/6/03)

Commission did not abuse its discretion in denying temporary total to employee who had been fired for violating written work rule.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Jennings, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/5/03)

Commission properly denied temporary total to worker who was fired for unexcused absenteeism and had never returned to any form of work.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Luther, State ex rel. v. Ford Motor Co. (4/4/07)

Injured worker does not voluntarily abandon his employment by being fired if he was disabled when fired; additionally, injured worker does not voluntarily abandon employment if reason for discharge (such as absenteeism) was due to the industrial injury.

Vote: 6-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

McKnabb, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/22/01)

Injured worker who was fired for violating employer’s absentee policy is not barred from receipt of temporary total where policy was not a written policy.

Vote: 4-2, 1 concur in judgment
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Nick Strimbu, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/7/05)

Injured worker who forgot to list an employer on his employment application did not act with intent to deceive required to find that he had made a fraudulent application; therefore, when the employer decided after worker was injured to fire him for submitting a false application in an attempt to avoid paying temporary total, he remained entitled to temporary total because the firing did not constitute a voluntary abandonment of employment.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

OmniSource Corp, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/9/07)

Injured worker who is disabled when fired is not barred from receipt of temporary total; injured worker cannot voluntarily abandon employment unless they were physically capable of performing that employment when fired.

Vote: 6-0, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Parraz, State ex rel. v. Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. (10/2/14)

Termination due to violation of attendance policy in union contract constituted voluntary abandonment of employment which barred eligibility for temporary total.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Pierron, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (10/15/08)

Worker who retired for reasons unrelated to the industrial injury and did not then seek further employment is barred from temporary total compensation.

Vote: 5-1, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Robinson, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/20/14)

Commission properly determined that injured worker who had received copy of company policies and knew that her actions could result in termination lost eligibility for temporary total because she had voluntarily abandoned her employment when the employer terminated her for violating a work rule.

Vote: 5-1, 1 not participating
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Saunders, State ex rel. v. Cornerstone Found. Sys., Inc. (8/19/09)

Injured worker who was fired for violation of written work rule did not abandon his employment (which would bar future temporary total compensation) when there was no evidence that he had received written work rule and could not have known that he was violating rule or that violation could lead to dismissal.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Valley Interior Systems, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (6/12/08)

Termination of employment only constitutes a voluntary abandonment which bars temporary total if injured worker knew or should have known that termination was a possible consequence of worker’s actions.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Viking Forge Corp., State ex rel. v. Perry (3/18/15)

Some evidence supported Commission decision that injured worker had not voluntarily abandoned his employment when Commission relied on injured worker’s testimony that incident that caused employer to fire him was the fault of a co-worker.

Vote: 6-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam