 |
 |
 |
||||
State ex rel. Pinson v. Indus. Comm.,
155 Ohio App.3d 270 (2003)
SUBJECT
Temporary Total Compensation
RULE
When a claimant has knowledge that a certain course of conduct will
result in the termination of his employment, and he voluntarily engages
in that conduct resulting in his termination, he is barred from receiving
temporary total compensation.
CASE DISCUSSION
Claimant suffered an industrial injury with Auburndale Co. while working
as an apprentice ironworker in July, 2000. In October, 2000 he returned
to work light duty and after 6 months resumed his full duty position.
In February, 2002 his conditions flared up and his physician completed
C-84’s indicating he was unable to work from February 21, 2002
to March 15, 2002 and from April 5, 2002 to March 20, 2003.
On June 5, 2002, the Toledo Area Ironworkers Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee completed a Dept. of Labor form indicating that claimant had engaged in “unsatisfactory performance.” (Claimant failed to attend classes and failed to explain his absence.) Claimant signed the form. On June 20, 2002 the training coordinator for the Ironworkers Committee suspended claimant from the training program and indicated that he could no longer work as an ironworker apprentice.
Due to Auburndale’s Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Ironworkers Union, the company was not permitted to employ claimant due to his suspension from the Ironworkers Training Program.
In July, 2003 an Industrial Commission Staff Hearing Officer awarded temporary total compensation from April 30, 2002 through June 4, 2002 but denied compensation beginning June 5, 2002 indicating in pertinent part that the termination of compensation “is based upon the claimant’s suspension from the Iron Workers’ Apprenticeship Program . . . thus, the claimant’s own voluntary actions, which led to his suspension, amount to a ‘voluntary abandonment’ of his former position of employment, so as to bar temporary total disability compensation.”
Claimant filed a Mandamus Action with the 10th District Court of Appeals requesting the Court order the Industrial Commission to vacate the finding that he is ineligible for compensation. The Court held that “the rationale of Ashcraft, Louisiana-Pacific, and related decisions is that a worker will be held to accept the consequences of his actions where the consequences were known to him beforehand or should have been, and where the worker’s actions were voluntary, i.e. not caused by the industrial injury.
The Court did grant a limited writ only to the extent that the Staff Hearing Officer’s Order did not identify the “clearly delineated standards” that claimant failed to meet, nor did the Staff Hearing Officer identify the evidence demonstrating that claimant knew or should have known the consequences of his acts. Therefore the Order did not comply with State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St. 3d 203.
The Court remanded the matter
back to the Industrial Commission to conduct further hearings in order
to make findings of fact regarding the standards claimant failed to
meet, and regarding claimant’s knowledge of those standards.
Michael J. Spisak
Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn
1350 Euclid Ave., Suite 1400
Cleveland, OH 44212
