State ex rel. Pretty Products, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
Decision Date | 23 October 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 94-1845,94-1845 |
Parties | The STATE ex rel. PRETTY PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al., Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
On two different occasions, appellee-claimant, Maxine Dansby, injured her low back in the course of and arising from her employment for appellant-relator, Pretty Products, Inc., a self-insured employer. The first incident occurred in February 1990. Relator states that it certified the claim, which was allowed for "sprain/strain lumbosacral." After a period of absence from work, claimant returned to her job at Pretty Products, Inc.
On November 8, 1990, claimant again left work and went to the hospital because of low back pain. Claimant saw her attending physician, Dr. Alfred H. Magness, for treatment. In a series of medical excuse slips, Dr. Magness certified that claimant was unable to return to her former job. The last of these medical slips certified that claimant could return to work on March 1, 1991.
Claimant did not return to work on Friday, March 1, 1991, nor did she then produce an excuse slip that extended her disability. Claimant did not report to work on the following Monday or Tuesday, and, consequently, she was terminated pursuant to a provision in the union/management agreement. Relator states that although claimant eventually contacted her union representative about filing a grievance to challenge her discharge, claimant did not file a grievance because it would have been considered untimely.
In June 1991, claimant moved appellee Industrial Commission for temporary total disability ("TTD") compensation beginning November 8, 1990, based on the first claim. In support of the motion, she submitted a June 8, 1991 C-84 "Physician's Report Supplemental" that was based on an April 26, 1991 exam and that certified claimant as temporarily totally disabled beginning November 8, 1990, to an estimated return-to-work date of August 1, 1991.
In August 1991, claimant filed a second workers' compensation claim alleging that she had injured her low back, neck and shoulders on November 8, 1990. Relator refused to certify this claim, however, contending that it was a "reoccurrence" of the first claim. In October, claimant filed a motion in the second claim requesting TTD compensation from November 8, 1990. Claimant alternatively requested wage loss compensation in the event that TTD compensation was denied. On November 25, 1991, a district hearing officer heard the allowance and wage compensation issues of the second claim, and issued an order allowing claimant's back injury as an "aggravation [of] pre-existing lumbosacral sprain/strain." Finding that claimant's discharge constituted a voluntary abandonment of her former position of employment, the district hearing officer denied both TTD and wage loss compensation beyond March 4, 1991. The regional board of review affirmed the district hearing officer's order in the second claim. On further appeal by claimant, staff hearing officers modified the district hearing officer's order Relator's motion for reconsideration was denied.
Relator filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in awarding TTD compensation beyond March 5, 1991. The court of appeals upheld the staff hearing officers' findings and denied the writ.
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Emens, Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter and Ronald L. Mason, Columbus, for appellant.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Cheryl J. Nester, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Larrimer & Larrimer, Terrence W. Larrimer and David H. Swanson, Columbus, for appellee Maxine Dansby.
This case presents the question of whether the Industrial Commission abused its discretion by finding that the claimant did not voluntarily abandon her position of employment, and that further temporary total disability compensation should be awarded. Because of the vagueness of the commission's order, we must remand for further explanation and clarification of the reasoning supporting that order.
The receipt of temporary total disability ("TTD") compensation rests on a claimant's inability to return to his or her former job as a direct result of an industrial injury. State ex rel. Ramirez v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Walmart, Inc. v. Hixson
...if the claimant remains disabled at the time of his separation from employment." Klein at ¶ 29. We also made clear that the statement in Pretty Prods. was no longer good law. Klein at ¶ 30. decided Klein in 2018. Reitter Stucco and OmniSource dated from 2007 and 2008, respectively, and Pret......
-
State ex rel. Gross v. Indus. Comm.
...scrutinize — claims for TTC that are close in time to a claimant's termination"). Indeed, in State ex rel. Pretty Prods., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 5, 670 N.E.2d 466, we strongly suggested that if a "claimant had been fired because of her industrial injury," id. at 8, 670 N......
-
State ex rel. Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co.
...OmniSource , 113 Ohio St.3d 303, 2007-Ohio-1951, 865 N.E.2d 41, at ¶ 10. In doing so, we construed State ex rel. Pretty Prods., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. , 77 Ohio St.3d 5, 670 N.E.2d 466 (1996), as requiring an inquiry into a claimant's physical capacity: "a claimant can abandon a former positi......
-
State ex rel. Walmart, Inc. v. Hixson
...May 12, 2018 and continuing thereafter upon submission of supporting medical evidence. Relying on State ex rel. Pretty Prods., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. , 77 Ohio St.3d 5, 670 N.E.2d 466 (1996), the commission held that Hixson did not voluntarily abandon her employment on March 6, 2018, as Hixso......