State ex rel. Quest Diagnostics, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n of Ohio
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20AP-246 |
| Citation | 187 N.E.3d 678 |
| Parties | STATE EX REL. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC., Relator, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Ohio et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
On brief: Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, and Brian P. Perry, Cincinnati, for relator.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jacquelyn McTigue, Columbus, for respondent for Industrial Commission of Ohio.
On brief: Stanley R. Jurus Law Office, and Robert Bumgarner, for respondent Quintina L. Stone.
DECISION
{¶ 1} Relator, Quest Diagnostics, Inc., commenced this original action in mandamus seeking an order compelling respondent, Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission"), to vacate its order granting the request of respondent, Quintina L. Stone ("claimant"), for temporary total disability ("TTD") compensation, and to reinstate the order of the staff hearing officer ("SHO") that denied claimant's motion for TTD compensation.
{¶ 2} Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, we referred this matter to a magistrate who issued a decision, including findings of fact and conclusions of law, which is appended hereto. The magistrate found that the Supreme Court of Ohio's decision in State ex rel. Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co. , 155 Ohio St.3d 78, 2018-Ohio-3890, 119 N.E.3d 386 is the controlling precedent and that the commission made a clear mistake of law when it misapplied Klein .
{¶ 3} As the magistrate explained, Klein reasserted the fundamental tenant that a claimant is ineligible for TTD compensation if the claimant's workplace injury did not cause the loss of earnings. Therefore, "when a claimant removes [herself] from employment for reasons unrelated to the work-related injury [she] is no longer eligible for temporary-total-disability compensation." Id. at ¶ 19. In the context of voluntary abandonment, an employee who quits her job for reasons unrelated to her workplace injury is ineligible for TTD compensation because in that circumstance, the injury did not cause the loss of earnings. Id. at ¶ 20. Klein requires this result even if the claimant desired to retain her position and never intended to leave the workforce.
{¶ 4} Because the commission misinterpreted and misapplied the holding in Klein , the magistrate found that it committed an error of law. The magistrate further concluded that because the commission's factual findings established that the claimant resigned her position for reasons unrelated to her workplace injury, she was ineligible for TTD compensation. For these reasons, the magistrate has recommended that we grant relator's request for a writ of mandamus.
{¶ 5} Both the claimant and the commission have filed objections to the magistrate's decision. We first address the claimant's objections.
{¶ 6} In her first objection, the claimant argues that the magistrate erred by not considering the question of intent in determining whether the claimant voluntarily removed herself from her position of employment. Specifically, the claimant contends that the magistrate did not consider the fact that she had intended to remain working for relator at one of its California locations until she found out shortly before her scheduled move that she needed a California certification. Because she lacked that certification, the claimant could not immediately transfer to one of relator's California locations. Consequently, the claimant had to decide whether to remain in Ohio in her current position with relator or resign her position and accompany her husband to California. Given the short timeframe, the claimant felt she was compelled to resign her position with relator because she understandably wanted to be with her husband who was starting a new job in California.
{¶ 7} Contrary to the claimant's contention, the magistrate did consider the claimant's intent. The magistrate examined the claimant's reasons for resigning her position and simply found that those reasons were not causally related to her workplace injuries. The claimant would have been confronted with this same decision regardless of whether she had suffered a workplace injury. Without a causal connection between the claimant's workplace injury and her reasons for resigning her position, the claimant is ineligible for TTD compensation. Klein , 155 Ohio St.3d 78, 2018-Ohio-3890, 119 N.E.3d 386, at ¶ 19-20. Although the claimant's reasons for quitting her job and moving to California with her husband are very understandable, those reasons are completely unrelated to her workplace injuries. Accordingly, the claimant is ineligible for TTD compensation, and we overrule the claimant's first objection.
{¶ 8} In her second objection, the claimant argues that the magistrate erred by substituting his own factual determination for those of the commission. We disagree.
{¶ 9} The question of intent for purposes of voluntary abandonment is a factual determination for the commission. Nevertheless, there must be some evidence to support that determination. Here, there is no evidence that the claimant left her position for reasons related to her workplace injury. As noted by the magistrate, there is no dispute about the circumstances that led up to the claimant's decision to resign her position. She had desired to transfer to another position at one of relator's locations in California and she had received assurance from relator that such a transfer was possible. When the claimant and relator found out a few days before the claimant's scheduled move that such a transfer was not possible because of California's certification requirements, she had to decide whether to stay in Ohio in her current position, or resign her position and move with her husband to California. She made the decision to resign her position. Those were factual determinations made by the commission. Based on those findings, the magistrate determined as a matter of law that the commission misapplied Klein because those factual determinations demonstrate that the claimant resigned her position for reasons unrelated to her injury. Therefore, she was ineligible for TTD compensation. The magistrate made a legal determination based on Klein —not a factual determination. Therefore, we overrule the claimant's second objection.
{¶ 10} In the commission's sole objection, it argues that "[t]he magistrate erred in disregarding the claimant's intent, reevaluating the evidence presented to the commission, and finding the facts in Klein analogous to the facts in this case." (Commission's Objs. to Mag.’s Decision at 2.) For the reasons previously discussed in overruling the claimant's objections, we disagree.
{¶ 11} Again, the magistrate did not ignore or disregard the claimant's reasons for abandoning her employment with relator. Quite the contrary, the magistrate accepted the commission's factual determinations and applied the legal analysis required by Klein . Because the facts here established that the claimant resigned her position for reasons unrelated to her workplace injury, she was ineligible for TTD compensation, even though her reasons for resigning her position were very understandable. None of the equitable reasons identified by the commission are causally related to the claimant's workplace injury. As noted in Klein , it is "a long-standing principle of causation governing temporary-total disability: that an employee's departure from the workplace must be causally related to [her] injury." Id. at ¶ 32.
{¶ 12} We recognize that in Klein , the claimant had expressed his clear intentions to leave his job permanently and to move to Florida prior to the date of his injury. In contrast, here the claimant had desired to keep her employment with relator by transferring to one of relator's California locations. But those factual distinctions do not negate the underlying causation requirement that is the foundation for the analysis in Klein . Although the claimant may have felt forced to resign her position due to the circumstances and time frame that confronted her, none of those circumstances are related to her workplace injury. The magistrate did not disregard the claimant's intent or reevaluate the evidence. Rather, the magistrate simply applied Klein to the undisputed facts. Therefore, we overrule the commission's sole objection.
{¶ 13} Following an independent review of this matter, we find that the magistrate has properly determined the facts and applied the appropriate law. Therefore, we adopt the magistrate's decision as our own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein. In accordance with the magistrate's decision, we grant relator's request for a writ of mandamus.
Objections overruled; writ of mandamus granted.
BEATTY BLUNT and MENTEL, JJ., concur.
v.
Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., Respondents.
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Brian P. Perry, and Christen S. Hignett, for relator.
Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Jacquelyn McTigue, for respondent for Industrial Commission of Ohio.
Stanley R. Jurus Law Office, and Robert Bumgarner, for respondent Quintina L. Stone.
IN MANDAMUS.
{¶ 14} Relator, Quest Diagnostics, Inc. ("employer"), has filed this original action requesting this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio ("commission") to vacate its order that granted the request of respondent Quintina L. Stone ("claimant") for temporary total disability ("TTD") compensation, and to reinstate the order of the staff hearing officer ("SHO") denying claimant's motion for TTD compensation.
Findings of Fact:
{¶ 15} 1. On October 6, 2018, claimant sustained an injury in the course of her employment as a phlebotomist when she fell off a ladder. Her workers’ compensation claim was allowed for the following...
To continue reading
Request your trial