State ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm., 98-556.
Decision Date | 26 January 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 98-556.,98-556. |
Parties | THE STATE EX REL. BAKER, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
M. Blake Stone, for appellant.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and C. Bradley Howenstein, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, L.L.P., Richard A. Hernandez and Brett L. Miller, for appellee Stahl-Wooster Division, A Scott Fetzer Company. Per Curiam.
In State ex rel. McGraw v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 137, 564 N.E.2d 695, we held that a claimant who chooses to leave his or her former position of employment for reasons unrelated to the industrial injury forfeits TTC eligibility. In McGraw, the court quoted with approval from State ex rel. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1985), 29 Ohio App.3d 145, 29 OBR 162, 504 N.E.2d 451, syllabus:
"" McGraw, 56 Ohio St.3d at 138, 564 N.E.2d at 697.
In this case, claimant's injury forced him from his former position of employment into lighter duty work with another employer. However, when claimant quit S-W, his actions effectively precluded a return to any position with that company, invoking the principles of McGraw and Jones & Laughlin.
Claimant asks us to overrule McGraw, and, in so doing, many of the decisions that underlie it. This we refuse to do. He alternatively asks us to find that his departure from S-W was injury-induced. We again decline.
Claimant left S-W for another job. The latter employment, by claimant's own admission, had the same physical demands as the job at which he was hurt. This finding undermines his assertion that he quit S-W because he could not do the work and provides "some evidence" supporting the commission's determination that claimant's departure was not injury-induced.
Contrary to claimant's suggestion, the commission was not required to accept claimant's uncorroborated statement that a S-W employee implied that his job was in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. McCoy v. Dedicated Transport
...denied his request for a writ of mandamus, Baker appealed to this court. {¶ 24} In our initial decision in State ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm. (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 561, 722 N.E.2d 67, we unanimously affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that Baker was not eligible for subs......
-
State ex rel. Deborah K. Bowman v. Fyda Freightliner, Inc., and Industrial Commission of Ohio,.
... ... considered the impact of State ex rel. Baker v. Indus ... Comm. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 376 ("Baker ... II"), instead ... ...
-
State ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm.
...on his own actions, i.e., acceptance of a truck mechanic position with Truck Stops, and not on his industrial injury. Baker, 87 Ohio St.3d at 563, 722 N.E.2d at 68. As previously mentioned, the per curiam opinion in Baker I was largely based upon the principles set forth in McGraw and Jones......
-
State ex rel. Hildebrand v. Wingate Transp. Inc.
...to the Supreme Court of Ohio. {¶52} The Supreme Court of Ohio issued its first decision in that case, State ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm. (2000), 87 Ohio St.3d 561 ("Baker I") and denied Baker TTD compensation because he had voluntarily abandoned his employment with his original employer wh......