State ex rel. Cleveland Browns Football, Co., L.L.C. v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 837
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Ryan Pontbriand, a Cleveland Browns long snapper, suffered an allowed L5-S1 disc herniation on November 27, 2005 and underwent microdiscectomy on December 6, 2005.
- Pontbriand missed five regular-season games due to the injury; the Browns continued paying his contractual salary and paid his medical bills (last medical payment 05/11/2006).
- Pontbriand filed a C-92 (application for determination of percentage of permanent partial disability) on 05/30/2013.
- The Browns treated the claim as “medical only” and BWC initially dismissed it as barred by the six-year medical-only statute of limitations in former R.C. 4123.52.
- Administrative adjudicators (DHO and SHO) found the Browns’ salary payments were wages in lieu of temporary total disability (TTD) or advanced compensation, making the ten-year lost-time statute apply and the C-92 timely; the Commission, after reconsideration, concluded the payments were wages in lieu of TTD and referred the C-92 to BWC.
- The Browns sought mandamus in the court of appeals, arguing (1) no lost wages occurred because salary continued, (2) no TTD application/physician certification exists, (3) no medical proof of disability for lost-time, and (4) no written offer of suitable employment was made.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claim is "medical only" (6-year limitation) or a "lost time" claim (10-year limitation) under former R.C. 4123.52 | Browns: Because Pontbriand kept receiving his full contractual salary, he suffered no compensable wage loss; claim is medical-only and barred after 6 years | Commission/BWC: Salary continuation was wages in lieu of TTD (or advanced compensation), so the 10-year lost-time period applies | Held: Commission did not abuse discretion — payments constituted wages in lieu of TTD; 10-year period applies and C-92 was timely |
| Whether absence of an application/request for TTD or physician C-84/Medco form precludes finding a lost-time claim | Browns: No TTD claim was made and no physician certification exists, so there is no evidence of TTD or lost time | Commission: Pontbriand never needed to seek TTD because employer-paid salary covered the period; absence of formal TTD paperwork is not dispositive | Held: Absence of TTD paperwork does not preclude finding wages in lieu of TTD; commission's factual finding supported |
| Whether medical evidence showing inability to perform contract duties is required to deem this a lost-time claim | Browns: No competent medical evidence proves disability preventing performance of contractual duties beyond speculative assertions | Commission: Missing five games and post-op restrictions show inability to return to the claimant’s former position (playing games) — enough under precedent | Held: Playing in games was the principal duty; inability to play constitutes inability to return to former position — commission’s finding supported |
| Whether availability of other contractual duties or employer-provided work (or failure to make written job offer) defeats a lost-time finding | Browns: Contract duties included practices, meetings, rehab and promotional work; employer effectively provided work within capabilities, so TTD not payable | Commission/BWC: Employer never made the written offer of suitable employment required to terminate TTD; administrative rules require a written offer | Held: Because Browns did not show they made a required written offer of suitable employment, they cannot rely on the "work available" exception to defeat wages-in-lieu/TTD finding |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ramirez v. Industrial Commission, 69 Ohio St.2d 630 (Ohio 1982) (defines TTD as preventing return to former position and explains "position" as the group of tasks and responsibilities comprising the job)
- State ex rel. Evans v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Columbus, 22 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1986) (medical report restricting a specific task can establish inability to return to former position; commission cannot rely on evidence that still precludes performance of an essential job duty)
- State ex rel. Crosby v. Department of Mental Retardation, 38 Ohio St.3d 179 (Ohio 1988) (where restrictions preclude claimant from returning to some aspect of the former job, that evidence cannot support a finding the claimant can return to the former position)