State ex rel. Ball v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 1381
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Relator Renee L. Ball sustained a 1999 work-related injury at Honda; claim allowed for contusion, sprain, and mononeuritis of the right leg.
- Honda, as self-insurer, paid non-working wage loss (NWWL) compensation in 2013.
- Ball sought WWL compensation for 12/02/2013–12/27/2013; DHO denied for lack of good-faith job search and lack of credible medical restrictions.
- SHO modified the DHO order but still denied WWL based on insufficient good-faith job search evidence and period-specific findings.
- Commission denied Ball’s WWL appeal in 2014; in 2015 treating-physician restrictions appeared, and Ball sought WWL for 5/16/2015–9/18/2015.
- DHO in 2016 granted partial WWL, then SHO vacated the DHO and denied WWL in full; Ball appealed via mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the commission abused its discretion on good-faith search | Ball demonstrated a meaningful job search and resulting employment; documentation supports good faith. | Documentation and contacts were insufficient in quantity and quality under 4125-1-01(D). | No abuse; denial upheld |
| Whether wage loss eligibility requires strict compliance with wage loss form specifics | Factual efforts outweigh technical form deficiencies. | Incomplete forms warrant denial or suspension until corrected. | Strict form requirements held not satisfied; denial sustained |
| Whether the evidence shows direct causal link between injury and wage loss periods | Medical restrictions and reduced earnings show causal connection. | Wage loss not proven due to insufficient job-search evidence and non-comparably paying work. | Causation and wage loss not established for WWL per record |
| Whether the magistrate’s and SHO's factual findings are supported by evidence | Relies on the medical restrictions and sequential job activities. | Findings supported by the record; credibility and weight within the commission’s discretion. | Record supports denial; no mandamus relief |
| Whether relator has a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus and duty of Commission to grant WWL | The commission abused its discretion and delayed relief. | Discretionary determinations require deference where substantial evidence supports them. | No mandamus relief; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Waddle v. Indus. Comm., 67 Ohio St.3d 452 ((1993)) (necessity of causal relationship in wage loss claims)
- State ex rel. The Andersons v. Indus. Comm., 64 Ohio St.3d 539 ((1992)) (two-component wage loss: wage reduction and causal link)
- State ex rel. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Morse, 72 Ohio St.3d 210 ((1995)) (good-faith effort required for wage loss eligibility)
- State ex rel. Reamer v. Indus. Comm., 77 Ohio St.3d 450 ((1997)) (good-faith wage loss criteria when seeking compensation)
- State ex rel. Rizer v. Indus. Comm., 88 Ohio St.3d 1 ((2000)) (definition of good-faith effort and comparable pay)
- State ex rel. Morse v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., not applicable () (see Morse above)
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 ((1983)) (mandamus standards and relief prerequisites)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 ((1967)) (mandamus remedy requirements)
- State ex rel. Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76 ((1986)) (abuse of discretion standard for wage loss)