State Ex Rel. Black v. Industrial Commission
137 Ohio St. 3d 75
| Ohio | 2013Background
- Black sustained a back injury in 2000 while employed by Park Ohio Industries, a self-insured employer.
- Black retired on February 28, 2001, and did not pursue vocational training or seek other employment thereafter.
- In December 2000, Black returned to work with restrictions; in January 2001 his treating physician increased restrictions for non-back-related pain.
- The Industrial Commission denied permanent-total-disability compensation, finding retirement voluntary and abandonment of the workforce; Black sought a writ of mandamus in the appellate court.
- The Tenth District issued a limited writ directing the Commission to reconsider eligibility; the Supreme Court reversed as to the writ, upholding the Commission’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Black's retirement was injury-induced or voluntary. | Black argues retirement was compelled by his injury and related restrictions. | Park Ohio/Commission contends retirement was voluntary and not induced by the injury. | Retirement was not shown to be injury-induced; some evidence supports voluntary abandonment. |
| Whether the Commission abused its discretion in weighing medical evidence. | Black contends the Commission improperly downplayed medical evidence suggesting injury-related retirement. | Commission properly assessed medical evidence and did not shift burden. | Commission did not abuse discretion; it considered contemporaneous medical evidence and other factors. |
| Whether abandonment/voluntary retirement bars eligibility for PTD benefits. | Black asserts retirement should not bar eligibility if injury-related. | Voluntary retirement and abandonment of workforce negate eligibility for PTD. | Voluntary retirement coupled with abandonment can lead to ineligibility for PTD. |
| Standard of review for mandamus in PTD determinations. | Appellate court should correct misinterpretation of evidence. | Court should defer to Commission’s weight and credibility determinations. | Review limited to whether there is some evidence to support the Commission’s decision; not arbitrary or unreasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. McAtee v. Indus. Comm., 76 Ohio St.3d 648 (1996) (retirement/abandonment relevance to PTD eligibility)
- State ex rel. Rockwell Internatl. v. Indus. Comm., 40 Ohio St.3d 44 (1988) (retirement/abandonment impact on PTD eligibility)
- Cinergy Corp./Duke Energy v. Heber, 130 Ohio St.3d 194 (2011) (retirement character and evidentiary considerations)
- State ex rel. Pierron v. Indus. Comm., 120 Ohio St.3d 40 (2008) (burden and factual determination on abandonment)
- Diveritech Gen. Plast. Film Div. v. Indus. Comm., 45 Ohio St.3d 381 (1989) (abandonment primarily a question of intent, evidence-based)
- Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.3d 202 (1994) (abandonment of entire workforce result for ineligibility)
- Mackey v. Ohio Dept. of Edn., 130 Ohio St.3d 108 (2011) (standard for evaluating evidence and mandamus relief)
- Guthrie v. Indus. Comm., 133 Ohio St.3d 244 (2012) (reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for Commission)