State ex rel. Corman v. Allied Holdings, Inc.
132 Ohio St. 3d 202
Ohio2012Background
- Corman, with an allowed workers’ compensation claim from a 2002 injury, retired from Allied Holdings in 2003 and did not work thereafter.
- The Industrial Commission denied TTC in 2009, finding Corman’s retirement was voluntary and unrelated to the injury, and that he failed to seek other work.
- Corman challenged via mandamus; the Franklin County Court of Appeals upheld the Commission’s denial.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirms, holding TTC cannot be awarded when the claimant left the labor force for reasons unrelated to the injury and did not attempt to find other work.
- The court emphasizes that there can be no lost earnings if the claimant is no longer in the active workforce.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TTC is available where the claimant permanently leaves the workforce for non-injury reasons | Corman argues injury-related retirement caused the absence | Pierron controls; absence was unrelated to injury and no work sought | TTC foreclosed; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Pierron v. Indus. Comm., 120 Ohio St.3d 40 (2008-Ohio-5245) (absence unrelated to injury precludes TTC)
- State ex rel. Ashcraft v. Indus. Comm., 34 Ohio St.3d 42 (1987) (TTC basics: lost earnings absent if no longer in workforce)
- Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Morse, 72 Ohio St.3d 210 (1995) (lifestyle decisions should not subsidize lost earnings)