State ex rel Baker v. Industrial Commission of Ohio8/9/2000
As amended November 16, 2000
Workers' compensation - Claimant who leaves former position of employment for a new position does not forfeit temporary total disability compensation eligibility.
When a claimant who is medically released to return to work following an industrial injury leaves his or her former position of employment to accept another position of employment, the claimant is eligible to receive temporary total disability compensation pursuant to R.C. 4123.56(A) should the claimant reaggravate the original industrial injury while working at his or her new job.
Submitted May 9, 2000
On Reconsideration.
On July 27, 1989, appellant, Paul W. Baker, suffered an industrial injury to his left knee during his employment as a general laborer for appellee, Stahl-Wooster Division, A Scott Fetzer Company ("Stahl- Wooster"). As a result of his industrial injury, the Industrial Commission allowed Baker's claim for a lateral tear of the meniscus of the left knee, and Baker subsequently missed work due to arthroscopic knee surgeries that were performed on January 9, 1990 and May 4, 1990. Baker received temporary total disability compensation ("TTD") from January 9, 1990 to July 15, 1990.
On July 15, 1990, Baker's treating physician, James J. Heintz, M.D., released Baker to resume full-time work, restricted to light duty. The following day, Baker returned to Stahl-Wooster and, that same day, signed a termination notice stating that he had "accepted other employment." Thereafter, Baker began his new job as a truck mechanic with Truck Stops of America ("Truck Stops"). On September 24, 1990, Baker left his position with Truck Stops, allegedly due to his original industrial injury.
After examinations by Dr. T. Kenneth Krutky and Dr. Heintz, Baker filed a request for a further allowance and for additional TTD. Specifically, Baker requested TTD from September 24, 1990 through an estimated return-to-work date of May 16, 1991. After considering Baker's request, a commission district hearing officer ("DHO") issued an order granting Baker TTD for the requested time period. After a timely appeal of the DHO decision by Stahl-Wooster, the Canton Regional Board of Review agreed with Stahl-Wooster, and denied TTD to Baker. The regional board denied TTD on the basis that Baker had voluntarily terminated his employment with Stahl-Wooster. Baker then timely appealed the board's decision to the Industrial Commission. On behalf of the commission, two staff hearing officers denied Baker's appeal, thereby agreeing with the board's decision. The commission's decision to deny Baker's appeal was based on a finding that Baker had voluntarily abandoned his position of employment with Stahl-Wooster.
On October 2, 1996, Baker filed a complaint in mandamus in the Franklin County Court of Appeals, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in denying his TTD request. The court of appeals disagreed and denied the writ. From the judgment of the court of appeals, Baker appealed to this court. On January 26, 2000, we issued our first decision in this case, State ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm. (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 561, 722 N.E.2d 67 ("Baker I"). In a per curiam opinion, we held that under the principles of State ex rel. McGraw v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 137, 564 N.E.2d 695, and State ex rel. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1985), 29 Ohio App.3d 145, 29 OBR 162, 504 N.E.2d 451, Baker was not eligible for TTD because he had voluntarily abandoned his employment with Stahl-Wooster by accepting new employment with Truck Stops.
In response to our initial decision, Baker filed a motion for reconsiderati
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|