State ex rel. BF Goodrich Co., Specialty Chems. Div. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)
148 Ohio St. 3d 212
| Ohio | 2016Background
- Marilynne J. Earles was injured at work on August 12, 2011; she returned to work Feb. 13, 2012 with medical restrictions (no climbing, heavy pushing/lifting/carrying, no overhead work) but no limit on hours.
- Earles was placed in Goodrich’s light-duty/restricted-employee program governed by a collective-bargaining agreement that limited or prohibited overtime for employees on light duty.
- Earles claimed working-wage loss under R.C. 4123.56(B) for specific periods when she lacked overtime earnings in the light-duty position.
- A district hearing officer denied wage-loss compensation; a union rep appealed. The commission accepted a later-filed affidavit of receipt and awarded wage-loss compensation, finding Earles’s restrictions were causally related to allowed conditions and that the CBA barred overtime for light-duty participants.
- Goodrich sought mandamus relief, arguing (1) Earles’s overtime loss wasn’t directly caused by medical restrictions (no hours restriction), and (2) the administrative appeal was untimely under the mailbox rule. The court of appeals denied the writ; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Earles (Plaintiff) Argument | Goodrich (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether loss of overtime while on light duty can constitute working-wage loss | Wage loss resulted from placement in light-duty program caused by medical restrictions related to the allowed claim | Loss of overtime was caused by CBA terms (nonmedical) and not by medical restrictions specifically limiting hours, so no direct causal link | Court held wage loss satisfied R.C. 4123.56(B): placement in light duty due to allowed medical restrictions and CBA-wide overtime prohibition made wage loss causally related to the injury |
| Whether claimant must show medical restriction specifically limiting overtime hours | Not required; need only show wage diminishment is the direct result of restrictions caused by allowed impairment | Must show restriction directly prevented overtime (hours-limiting restriction); general medical restrictions without hour limits are insufficient | Court rejected Goodrich’s narrow reading—causal link exists where employer placed claimant in light-duty because of allowed restrictions and that program disallowed overtime |
| Whether Jordan/DaimlerChrysler require evidence claimant was singled out or denied overtime for punitive or individualized reasons | Prior cases consistent with finding here where light-duty program applied because of injury | Jordan/DaimlerChrysler require inquiry into why overtime decreased; if economic or department-wide reasons, no causal link | Court distinguished those cases: here CBA expressly applied to all light-duty participants and placement was due to allowed restrictions, so no abuse of discretion in award |
| Whether the appeal from the district hearing officer was timely (mailbox rule) | Union rep’s affidavit that he received order Nov. 29 and filed within 14 days was credible; commission properly credited it | Presumption of receipt upon mailing (Weiss mailbox rule) meant appeal would have been due earlier; thus appeal was untimely | Court found mailbox rule inapplicable here because commission credited the affidavit; acceptance of credible evidence of receipt meant appeal was timely; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Jordan v. Indus. Comm., 102 Ohio St.3d 153 (2004) (remanded where commission order ambiguous about causal link between overtime loss and injury)
- State ex rel. Watts v. Schottenstein Stores Corp., 68 Ohio St.3d 118 (1994) (outlines components of wage-loss claim: actual wage loss and causal connection to workplace injury)
- Weiss v. Ferro Corp., 44 Ohio St.3d 178 (1989) (mailbox rule: rebuttable presumption of receipt after mailing)
- State ex rel. Cleveland v. Indus. Comm., 146 Ohio St.3d 1488 (2016) (addressed related issue of wage-loss entitlement for employees placed in light duty; noted by dissent as relevant to statewide concern)