 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Siegel Interior Specialists12/30/1998
[Cite as State ex rel. Ooten v. Siegel Interior Specialists Co. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Workers' compensation - Industrial Commission does not abuse its discretion in denying wage-loss compensation, when.
Submitted December 2, 1998
Appellant-claimant, Michael D. Ooten, injured his back on August 8, 1991, while working as a carpenter/drywall installer for Siegel Interior Specialists Company. Dr. Noel S. Perin released claimant "to return to his regular employment and has been authorized to resume light/regular work as of 15th of April ." While the release form did not distinguish between light and regular work, there is evidence of a contemporaneous medical assessment by Dr. Perin, which places restrictions on claimant's lifting over twenty-five pounds, as well as limitations on prolonged sitting, standing, crouching, and balancing.
Claimant returned to work at Siegel. Siegel, in turn, terminated claimant's employ on May 19, 1992, allegedly because he could not do the heavy work his position required. Later that day, claimant - acting on a tip - contacted E.H. Tasset ("Tasset"), another carpentry company. Despite his medical limitations, Tasset agreed to give claimant a try. Claimant started on May 21, 1992, doing metal stud and drywall work.
Leg and back pain plagued claimant throughout the summer. Dr. Perin recommended that claimant "change his occupation if he was to avoid any further injury to his back." Claimant then left Tasset.
After leaving Tasset, claimant stated that he "had no idea what I was going to do as far as income and after lots of thought I decided to try and start my own business." Out of that decision, Ooten Interior Systems was born.
On July 23, 1993, claimant moved appellee, Industrial Commission of Ohio, for wage-loss compensation. Accompanying appellee's motion were Dr. Perin's restrictions, W-2's from claimant and his wife, and their extensive individual and corporate tax records.
A district hearing officer on July 7, 1994, denied wage-loss compensation, finding:
" * * * he claimant has not demonstrated an actual loss of wages that results directly from the physical restrictions placed upon the claimant."
"Specifically, the only wage information submitted by the claimant are his W-2 forms for the years 1992 and 1993. From this limited information, it is not possible to determine that the claimant is actually earning less in his new employment as opposed to what he earned at his previous place of employment."
A staff hearing officer, on appeal, added on August 29, 1994, that:
" laimant returned to his former position of employment as a carpenter for the instant employer before leaving that position to accept a similar position with a different employer. Further, on file from claimant's physician of record is a return to work form enabling the claimant to return to light/regular duty as of 4/15/92, dated 3/9/92."
"Further, claimant has not submitted credible evidence to support [that] his decision to become self-employed in his own business, instead of performing a `good faith' job search, was due to medical restrictions resulting from the industrial injury * * *."
"In all other respects[,] the district hearing officer order dated 7-7-94 is affirmed."
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying his wage-loss application. The court of appeals disagreed and denied the writ.
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Wage-loss
Page 1 2 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|