From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State ex Rel. Eckerly v. Indus. Comm

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 8, 2005
2005 Ohio 2587 (Ohio 2005)

Summary

In Eckerly, the court, noting prior holdings in the evolution of the doctrine of voluntary abandonment, stated that a claimant who voluntarily abandoned their position of employment or were fired under circumstances that amount to a voluntary abandonment will be eligible to receive TTD compensation if they reenter the workforce and, due to the original industrial injury, become temporarily and totally disabled while working at the new job.

Summary of this case from State ex rel. Butler Vill. v. Indus. Comm'n of Ohio

Opinion

No. 2004-1269.

Submitted March 29, 2005.

Decided June 8, 2005.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 03AP-621, 2004-Ohio-3934.

Marinakis Law Office and Angela D. Marinakis, for appellant.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Lasheyl N. Sowell, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

Dinsmore Shohl, L.L.P., and Michael L. Squillace, for appellee Tech II, Inc.


{¶ 1} Appellant-claimant, Shawn E. Eckerly, broke one of his right metacarpals on February 15, 2001, and a workers' compensation claim was allowed. Three months later, claimant was fired from Tech II for unexcused absenteeism. Appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio declared that claimant's discharge constituted a voluntary abandonment of his former position of employment pursuant to State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 401, 650 N.E.2d 469. The commission therefore denied temporary total disability compensation ("TTC").

{¶ 2} There is no evidence that claimant was gainfully employed for any specific length of time thereafter. A C-84 Request for Temporary Total Compensation form included a statement by claimant's doctor of an actual returnto-work date of June 13, 2001. There are, however, no pay stubs, wage statements, tax records, or any other evidence indicating that claimant indeed returned to work on that day, nor is there is any evidence identifying any alleged employer or the length of claimant's employment therewith. A 2002 IRS 1099-MISC (miscellaneous income) form indicates total yearly earnings of $804.98 paid by Red Express Delivery Services, Inc. Again, no other evidence of employment is contained in the record.

{¶ 3} In early 2003, claimant's claim was additionally allowed for "RSD/CRPS [reflex sympathetic dystrophy/chronic regional pain syndrome] right upper extremity." On February 11, claimant filed a C-84 application for TTC supported by a physician's report from Dr. Mervet K. Saleh that certified temporary total disability from February 5, 2003, through May 5, 2003. A district hearing officer denied that motion:

{¶ 4} "[T]emporary total disability compensation was previously denied by Staff Hearing Officer order of 06/25/2002 with the finding that Mr. Eckerly had voluntari[l]y abandoned his employment. Pursuant to the Supreme Court case of State ex rel. McCoy v. Dedicated Transport (2002)[,] 97 Ohio St.3d 25 [ 2002-Ohio-5305, 776 N.E.2d 51], Mr. Eckerly must provide evidence that he did not abandoned [sic] the entire workforce and that he returned to employment following his prior termination. Mr. Eckerly provided no documentation of a return to work and did not attend today's hearing to testify regarding same."

{¶ 5} A staff hearing officer affirmed that order after claimant again failed to produce evidence of a return to the workforce. Claimant again appealed, this time submitting the aforementioned 1099 form. Claimant's appeal was nonetheless refused.

{¶ 6} Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in denying TTC and asking that the commission be ordered to grant TTC. The court of appeals found no abuse of discretion in the commission's order and denied the writ, prompting claimant's appeal to this court as of right.

{¶ 7} For years, a voluntary departure from the former position of employment barred further TTC. State ex rel. Rockwell Internatl. v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 44, 531 N.E.2d 678. State ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 376, 732 N.E.2d 355, changed that by extending TTC eligibility to claimants who left the former position of employment to accept other employment and were subsequently prevented from doing that job by a recurrence of the original industrial injury. State ex rel. McCoy v. Dedicated Transp., Inc., 97 Ohio St.3d 25, 2002-Ohio-5305, 776 N.E.2d 51, extended Baker's holding to anyone who voluntarily left the former position of employment regardless of the reason, including one who was discharged:

{¶ 8} "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." Id. at syllabus.

{¶ 9} The present claimant seemingly misunderstands McCoy. He appears to believe that so long as he establishes that he obtained another job — if even for a day — at some point after his departure from Tech II, TTC eligibility is forever after reestablished. Unfortunately, this belief overlooks the tenet that is key to McCoy and all other TTC cases before and after: that the industrial injury must remove the claimant from his or her job. This requirement obviously cannot be satisfied if claimant had no job at the time of the alleged disability.

{¶ 10} In the case at bar, there is no evidence that claimant was employed in February 2003 when the requested period of TTC was alleged to have begun. To the contrary, it appears that claimant was almost entirely unemployed in the two years after his discharge from Tech II, earning only approximately $800 during that period.

{¶ 11} Claimant has also alternatively asserted that his industrial injury prevented him from securing other employment following his termination from Tech II. If that is indeed the case, claimant should be seeking wage-loss compensation under R.C. 4123.56(B), not TTC. TTC is confined to situations in which a working claimant is prevented from doing his or her job by an industrial injury. Because the claimant here was not working at the time of the alleged onset of disability, the court of appeals' denial of a writ of mandamus to compel TTC was proper.

{¶ 12} The court of appeals' judgment is hereby affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State ex Rel. Eckerly v. Indus. Comm

Supreme Court of Ohio
Jun 8, 2005
2005 Ohio 2587 (Ohio 2005)

In Eckerly, the court, noting prior holdings in the evolution of the doctrine of voluntary abandonment, stated that a claimant who voluntarily abandoned their position of employment or were fired under circumstances that amount to a voluntary abandonment will be eligible to receive TTD compensation if they reenter the workforce and, due to the original industrial injury, become temporarily and totally disabled while working at the new job.

Summary of this case from State ex rel. Butler Vill. v. Indus. Comm'n of Ohio

In Eckerly, the worker was permitted to return to his former position of employment with no restrictions but then voluntarily abandoned his former position when he was fired for unexcused absenteeism.

Summary of this case from State ex rel. Cummins v. Charles Kyun Lee Budget Host Town Ctr. Motel & the Indus. Comm'n of Ohio

In Eckerly, the worker was permitted to return to his former position of employment with no restrictions but then voluntarily abandoned his former position when he was fired for unexcused absenteeism.

Summary of this case from State ex rel. Montane v. ABM Janitorial Servs., Inc.

In Eckerly, the worker was permitted to return to his former position of employment with no restrictions but then voluntarily abandoned his former position when he was fired for unexcused absenteeism.

Summary of this case from State ex rel. MedAmerica Health Sys. Corp. v. Brammer

In Eckerly, there was evidence to support a finding that the claimant abandoned the work force entirely when he voluntarily abandoned his employment, he earned about $800 as a delivery person in the year following, he presented no other evidence of a return to the work force, and he was unemployed on the date he claimed temporary total compensation should commence.

Summary of this case from State ex rel. Cline v. Abke Trucking, Inc.

In Eckerly, at ¶ 7-10, the injured worker had been found to have voluntarily abandoned his employment, had not returned to the workforce after his discharge and, consequently, was not working at the time he applied for TTD compensation.

Summary of this case from Goodyear Tire Rubber v. Indus. Comm.
Case details for

State ex Rel. Eckerly v. Indus. Comm

Case Details

Full title:The State ex rel. Eckerly, Appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et…

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: Jun 8, 2005

Citations

2005 Ohio 2587 (Ohio 2005)
2005 Ohio 2587
828 N.E.2d 97

Citing Cases

State ex rel. Montane v. ABM Janitorial Servs., Inc.

{¶ 12} In its second objection, the commission contends that the magistrate erred in holding that the…

State ex rel. James v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The hearing officer concluded that based on the commission's previous order, the request for benefits from…