 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Williams v. Coca-Cola Enterprises9/27/2005
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
IN MANDAMUS ON OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
{ } In this original action, relator, Charlie Williams, requests a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission"), to vacate its order denying him temporary total disability ("TTD") compensation and enter an order granting said compensation beginning December 15, 2003. The magistrate has recommended the writ be denied. Relator filed objections to that recommendation. For the reasons that follow, the objections are overruled and the writ is denied.
{ } Relator injured his left knee on February 13, 2001, while employed as a tractor-trailer driver for Coca-Cola. He subsequently underwent surgery on the left knee and filed a claim for workers' compensation based on the injury. Relator returned to work in June 2001. The district hearing officer ("DHO") allowed a claim for left medial meniscus tear and awarded TTD compensation for the four months relator was absent from work. The decision was administratively affirmed.
{ } Due to an unrelated condition, relator became disabled and unable to work beginning March 1, 2002. In June 2002, relator took a length of service retirement from Coca-Cola. He has not returned to the work force since.
{ } In January 2003, relator underwent total left knee arthroplasty. Thereafter, in August 2003, the commission allowed the addition of traumatic arthropathy of the left knee to relator's original 2001 claim. In December of that same year, relator's doctor certified a period of TTD compensation beginning December 2003 for iliotibial band tendonitis of the left knee. Relator had surgery for that condition in February 2004. In July 2004, the DHO allowed the addition of IT band syndrome of the left knee on the 2001 claim, but denied the requested TTD compensation. On appeal, the staff hearing officer agreed with the denial based on relator's voluntary, non-medical, retirement. The decision was administratively affirmed; thus, relator has petitioned this court.
{ } Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, the matter was referred to a magistrate. On May 12, 2005, the magistrate issued his decision, including supportive findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(Attached as Appendix A.) Therein, the magistrate recommended that this court deny relator's requested writ of mandamus. The magistrate concluded that TTD compensation is appropriate only when a voluntary departure from the work force is followed by a re-entry into the work force and an absence from that new job due to work-related injuries. Since relator has not re-entered the work force, the magistrate held TTD compensation was prohibited.
{ } Relator objects to the magistrate's decision. He argues that the magistrate was incorrect in finding he had abandoned the work force entirely by taking a length of service retirement. Relator asserts he did not intend to abandon the entire work force and therefore should still be entitled to TTD compensation. Relator further argues that a claimant on disability at the time of retirement cannot be deemed to have entirely abandoned the job market.
{ } In order for this court to issue a writ of mandamus as a remedy from a determination of the commission, relator must show a clear legal right to the relief sought and that the commission has a clear legal duty to provide such relief. State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 141. A clear legal right to a writ of mandamus exists where relator shows that the commission abused its discretion by entering an order which is not supported by any evidence
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|