State ex rel. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Industrial Com'n of Ohio, No. 84AP-620
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
| Writing for the Court | WHITESIDE; McCORMAC; MOYER; MOYER |
| Citation | 29 OBR 162,29 Ohio App.3d 145,504 N.E.2d 451 |
| Docket Number | No. 84AP-620 |
| Decision Date | 26 September 1985 |
| Parties | , 29 O.B.R. 162 The STATE, ex rel. JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP., v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al. |
Page 145
v.
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al.
One who has voluntarily retired and has no intention of ever returning to his former position of employment is not prevented from returning to that former position by an industrial injury which renders him unable to perform the duties of such former position of employment. A worker is prevented by an industrial injury from returning to his former position of employment where, but for the industrial injury, he would return to such former position of employment. However, where the employee has taken action that would preclude his returning to his former position of employment, even if he were able to do so, he is not entitled to continued temporary total disability benefits since it is his own action, rather than the industrial injury, which prevents his returning to such former position of
Page 146
employment. Such action would include such situations as the acceptance of another position, as well as voluntary retirement.Manchester, Bennett, Powers & Ullman Co., L.P.A., Thomas J. Travers, Jr., and Joseph R. Young, Jr., Youngstown, for relator.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., Janet E. Jackson, Michael Squillace and Q. [504 N.E.2d 453] Albert Corsi, Columbus, for respondent Industrial Com'n.
Tablack, Wellman & Jeren, John A. Jeren, Jr., and Gary Zamary, Youngstown, for respondent Ernesto Rosado.
WHITESIDE, Judge.
Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Section 13 of Loc.R. 11 of this court, this original action in mandamus was referred to a referee, who rendered his report recommending that the requested writ of mandamus be denied.
Relator-employer, Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, filed objections to the referee's report contending:
"1. The Referee erred, as a matter of law, in finding that the C-84 forms submitted by Dr. Morrison constituted 'some evidence' supporting the order of the Industrial Commission affirming an award of temporary total disability benefits in the instant action.
"2. The Referee erred, as a matter of law, in finding that the Respondent-Claimant's voluntary retirement from the work force did not preclude an award of temporary total disability benefits in the instant action."
As to the first objection, whether the medical evidence reasonably permits a finding by respondent Industrial Commission that the claimant Ernesto Rosado (respondent herein) is temporarily totally disabled within the meaning of R.C. 4123.56, the referee correctly reviewed the evidence and the applicable law, and we adopt his report.
Although the report of Dr. Morrison might also support a finding that claimant is permanently and totally disabled, it most certainly supports a finding that the claimant is unable to perform the duties of his former position of employment. We do not understand relator to contend that respondent Industrial Commission should have awarded the claimant permanent total disability compensation, which the evidence also would support. Rather, we understand relator's position to be that the claimant should be awarded no compensation, despite the medical evidence that he is totally disabled from his industrial injury, based upon a contention that the temporary disability has become permanent in that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Gross v. Indus. Comm., No. 2005-1689.
...improvement. R.C. 4123.56. Voluntary-Abandonment Doctrine {¶ 8} In State ex rel. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1985), 29 Ohio App.3d 145, 29 OBR 162, 504 N.E.2d 451, the Tenth District Court of Appeals was asked to determine whether a claimant was entitled to the continuatio......
-
State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus. Comm., No. 93-5
...TTD compensation was initially developed in a trilogy of cases. In State ex rel. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1985), 29 Ohio App.3d 145, 146, 29 OBR 162, 163, 504 N.E.2d 451, 453, the court of appeals noted that in Ramirez, supra, at the syllabus, we had defined "TTD" " 'as......
-
State ex rel. Sheets v. Indus. Comm'n of Ohio, No. 16AP-22
...{¶ 36} First, the commission analyzed the relevant case law which includes State ex rel. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 29 Ohio App.3d 145 (10th Dist.1985), State ex rel. Ashcraft v. Indus. Comm., 34 Ohio St.3d 42 (1987), and State ex rel. McCoy v. Dedicated Transport, Inc., ......
-
State ex rel. Cordell v. Pallet Cos., No. 2015–0163.
...injury, which prevents his returning to such former position of employment.State ex rel. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 29 Ohio App.3d 145, 147, 504 N.E.2d 451 (10th Dist.1985). Relying on the reasoning in Jones & 149 Ohio St.3d 497Laughlin, we held that TTD compensation was ......
-
State ex rel. Gross v. Indus. Comm., No. 2005-1689.
...improvement. R.C. 4123.56. Voluntary-Abandonment Doctrine {¶ 8} In State ex rel. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1985), 29 Ohio App.3d 145, 29 OBR 162, 504 N.E.2d 451, the Tenth District Court of Appeals was asked to determine whether a claimant was entitled to the continuatio......
-
State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus. Comm., No. 93-5
...TTD compensation was initially developed in a trilogy of cases. In State ex rel. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1985), 29 Ohio App.3d 145, 146, 29 OBR 162, 163, 504 N.E.2d 451, 453, the court of appeals noted that in Ramirez, supra, at the syllabus, we had defined "TTD" " 'as......
-
State ex rel. Sheets v. Indus. Comm'n of Ohio, No. 16AP-22
...{¶ 36} First, the commission analyzed the relevant case law which includes State ex rel. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 29 Ohio App.3d 145 (10th Dist.1985), State ex rel. Ashcraft v. Indus. Comm., 34 Ohio St.3d 42 (1987), and State ex rel. McCoy v. Dedicated Transport, Inc., ......
-
State ex rel. Cordell v. Pallet Cos., No. 2015–0163.
...injury, which prevents his returning to such former position of employment.State ex rel. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 29 Ohio App.3d 145, 147, 504 N.E.2d 451 (10th Dist.1985). Relying on the reasoning in Jones & 149 Ohio St.3d 497Laughlin, we held that TTD compensation was ......