State ex rel. Jordan v. Indus. Comm., 2004 Ohio 2115 (OH 5/12/2004), Case No. 2003-1305.

• Decision Date: 12 May 2004
• Docket Number: Case No. 2003-1305.
• Citation: 2004 Ohio 2115,102 Ohio St.3d 153
• Parties: The State ex rel. Jordan, appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 1

2004 Ohio 2115

102 Ohio St.3d 153

The State ex rel. Jordan, appellant, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., appellees.

Case No. 2003-1305.

In the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted March 30, 2004.

Decided May 12, 2004.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 02AP-1110, 2003-Ohio-2945.

Gallon & Takacs Co., L.P.A., and Theodore A. Bowman, for appellant.

Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Dennis L. Hufstader, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.

Bugbee & Conkle, L.L.P., Robert L. Solt and Mark S. Barnes, for appellee Ford Motor Company.

PER CURIAM.

{¶1} Appellant-claimant, Jimmie L. Jordan Jr., broke his left wrist at work on September 28, 2000. Appellee-employer Ford Motor Company thereafter offered— and claimant accepted— a light-duty job at the same hourly wage as before. Unlike his prior job, however, claimant, for reasons yet to be determined, received substantially less overtime, despite an absence of medical restrictions limiting the number of hours he could work. Consequently, claimant's weekly earnings were usually less than those before his injury.

{¶2} Claimant eventually moved for wage-loss compensation pursuant to R.C. 4123.56(B). A district hearing officer ("DHO") for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio denied the application, finding no causal relationship between claimant's injury and his reduced hours. Without explaining, the DHO said simply that "[a]ny loss of overtime would appear to be related to any number of factors." A staff hearing officer ("SHO") also denied the application, but for other reasons. In an ambiguous order, the staff hearing officer suggested the absence of an actual wage loss in citing a lack of evidence that others in claimant's former position of employment were still receiving overtime. She also, however, mentioned a lack of evidence that claimant would have accepted overtime if offered, implying no causal relationship between wage loss and injury. Further consideration was denied.

{¶3} Claimant petitioned the Court of Appeals for Franklin County for a writ of mandamus, claiming that the commission had abused its discretion in denying his request for compensation. The court of appeals, speaking through its magistrate, noted that "the record includes no evidence to show why claimant did not receive overtime hours." Rather than order the commission to reconsider the application, however, the court denied the writ, prompting claimant's appeal to this court as of right.

{¶4} Compensation for wage loss demands actual wage loss and a causal connection to injury. State ex rel. Watts v. Schottenstein Stores Corp. (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 118, 623 N.E.2d 1202. The commission's denial is conflicting, drifting between suggestions of no actual wage loss and no causal relationship. The court of appeals upheld the commission's order, but clearly on the basis of no causal relationship. For the reasons to follow, we reverse that judgment and order the commission to conduct further proceedings and issue an amended order.

{¶5} The parties agree that claimant was making approximately $ 1,300 per week when injured. He quickly took light-duty work with the same employer at the same $22.23 hourly rate as before. From these numbers, it follows that if the claimant was earning $ 1,300 weekly, he was working considerable overtime to get it.

{¶6} During the disputed period, claimant worked minimal overtime with a commensurate decline in earnings, and it is around this that controversy revolves. The commission's order implied that no wage loss existed, based on the absence of evidence that others in claimant's former classification were still receiving overtime during that period. Claimant assails that reasoning, citing State ex rel. Bos v. Navistar Internatl. Transp. Corp. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 314, 738 N.E.2d 791.

{¶7} Bos involved a claimant whose former associates apparently received a raise after injury forced claimant into a lower-paying assignment. The commission refused to compare claimant's post-injury earnings with those of his fellow employees to calculate wage-loss differential, and the court of appeals upheld the order. We did not, however, address this...