2016 Ohio 8446
Ohio2016Background
- James F. Cordell, a Pallet Companies employee, fractured his right tibia and fibula in a work-related fall on February 16, 2012. He was medically unable to return to work after the injury.
- A postaccident drug screen (sampled at hospital) returned positive for marijuana metabolites on February 22, 2012; Pallet terminated Cordell that day under its drug-free workplace policy prohibiting illegal drug use at any time.
- BWC initially allowed medical benefits and temporary-total-disability (TTD) compensation starting Feb. 17, 2012; Pallet appealed and a DHO denied TTD, but an SHO reinstated TTD based on precedent that an employee disabled at termination cannot be deemed to have voluntarily abandoned employment.
- The Industrial Commission, relying on a Tenth District decision (PaySource), reversed and denied TTD, finding Cordell voluntarily abandoned employment by preinjury drug use discovered after the injury; BWC issued an overpayment notice.
- The Tenth District court of appeals granted mandamus, ordering the commission to reinstate TTD; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals and held Cordell entitled to TTD.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cordell) | Defendant's Argument (Pallet/IC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preinjury misconduct discovered after an injury can constitute voluntary abandonment that bars TTD | Termination after injury for preinjury, unrelated conduct does not sever causal link; Cordell was disabled at termination so TTD remains payable | Preinjury drug use violated a dischargeable written rule and thus constituted voluntary abandonment severing causal connection to wage loss | Held: No — if (1) the dischargeable conduct was discovered because of the injury and (2) the worker was medically incapable of returning to work at termination, termination is not voluntary abandonment and TTD is payable |
| Whether Gross II and Reitter Stucco control and preclude denial of TTD here | Gross II and Reitter Stucco show benefits cannot be denied based on fault where termination is causally related to or results from the injury; here drug use did not cause injury | Commission argued Gross II creates bad public policy if extended; PaySource (Tenth Dist.) compels denial | Held: Gross II and Reitter Stucco apply; statutory no-fault framework controls; policy concerns are for legislature |
| Whether R.C. 4123.54(A)(2)/(B) (intoxication exclusion) applies | Cordell: Pallet concedes drug use did not cause injury; R.C. intoxication exclusion not implicated | Pallet: argued misconduct alone justifies denial under voluntary-abandonment doctrine | Held: Intoxication statutes not applicable because Pallet conceded drug use did not cause the accident; denial cannot rest on fault in these circumstances |
| Standard of review — whether commission’s factual finding should be left undisturbed | Cordell: when legal interpretation is at issue, mandamus proper if commission misapplies law | Commission: its factual finding that rule violation occurred supports denial; writ inappropriate if some evidence supports order | Held: Court limited review to legal interpretation (extent of injury undisputed) and concluded commission misapplied law; mandamus appropriate to correct legal error |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Gross v. Indus. Comm., 115 Ohio St.3d 249 (2007) (benefits may not be denied on basis of fault; termination tied to injury does not constitute voluntary abandonment)
- State ex rel. Reitter Stucco, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 117 Ohio St.3d 71 (2008) (even if termination meets Louisiana-Pacific criteria, TTD remains if claimant was medically incapable of returning to work at discharge)
- State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 72 Ohio St.3d 401 (1995) (three-part test when termination for violating a written work rule equates to voluntary abandonment)
- State ex rel. Rockwell Internatl. v. Indus. Comm., 40 Ohio St.3d 44 (1988) (retirement or departure causally related to injury is not voluntary abandonment)
- State ex rel. McCoy v. Dedicated Transport, Inc., 97 Ohio St.3d 25 (2002) (voluntary departure precludes TTD only if it severs causal link between injury and wage loss)
- State ex rel. Cobb v. Indus. Comm., 88 Ohio St.3d 54 (2000) (use of illegal drugs can constitute voluntary abandonment when it violates a written policy)
- State ex rel. Pretty Prods., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 77 Ohio St.3d 5 (1996) (claimant cannot be said to have abandoned employment if physically incapacitated at time of departure; timing/inquiry into cause of separation is critical)
- State ex rel. Haddox v. Indus. Comm., 135 Ohio St.3d 307 (2013) (reiterates that central question is whether injury or termination caused wage loss)