Wage Loss Cases: Abandonment of Employment (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

Wage Loss: Abandonment of Employment

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.

Frederick, State ex rel. v. Licking Cty. Dept. of Human Serv. (6/24/98)

If allowed condition does not prevent injured worker from returning to former position of employment, injured worker is not entitled to wage loss compensation. Where injured worker has been laid off, but was capable of performing their former position of employment, the injured worker is not entitled to wage loss. If allowed condition does prevent injured worker from returning to former position of employment, injured worker can be entitled to wage loss compensation, regardless of whether the job has been abolished.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Stafford, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/30/98)

Wage loss is not barred just because injured worker has left the employer they were working at when injured. The reason why the injured worker left the employer does not matter, the injured worker is eligible for wage loss compensation as long as the medical limitations caused by the injury prevent the injured worker from doing the job they were doing when injured. Good faith job search is required, but where Commission does not explain why the employee’s job search was not in good faith, the order denying wage loss compensation is invalid.

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