State ex rel. DiPietrantonio v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 720
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- DiPietrantonio sustained a 2013 work injury and was released with work restrictions; employer (Hammond) had no on-site work but placed him in a Modified Duty Off-Site (MDOS) assignment at the Red Cross.
- Hammond’s MDOS offer and employee handbook notified him that company policies (including accurate time reporting) remained in effect and that falsification could lead to termination and loss of workers’ comp benefits.
- DiPietrantonio signed the MDOS agreement and the handbook; he submitted time sheets that increasingly reported 8-hour days (40 hours/week) though his scheduled Red Cross hours were about 3 hours/day.
- Hammond investigated after suspicion arose; a private investigator observed DiPietrantonio away from the Red Cross on multiple dates corresponding to claimed hours. The Red Cross volunteer who signed blank weekly sheets (Morrow) later stated he did not instruct falsification.
- Hammond terminated DiPietrantonio for falsifying time records. The Industrial Commission denied his claim for temporary total disability (TTD) compensation, finding voluntary abandonment of employment due to violation of a known written work rule. Relator sought a writ of mandamus; the court denied it, adopting the magistrate’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commission abused discretion in denying TTD by finding voluntary abandonment | DiPietrantonio argued he did not voluntarily abandon because his Red Cross supervisor authorized his time entries | Hammond argued falsification violated a written, dischargeable work rule that DiPietrantonio knew, justifying termination and barring TTD | Commission order affirmed: record contains some evidence supporting finding of voluntary abandonment; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether employer satisfied Louisiana-Pacific requirements to bar TTD | Relator contended employer policy or its application was insufficient to prove a dischargeable rule or knowledge | Hammond relied on employee handbook and MDOS agreement showing rule clearly forbids falsifying time and is dischargeable, and relator signed them | Held: Employer met Louisiana-Pacific criteria; relator was on notice of the rule |
| Credibility of relator’s excuse blaming Red Cross supervisor | Relator claimed Morrow instructed or acquiesced to the false reporting | Employer produced Morrow's affidavit denying instruction and the investigator’s reports; commission credited employer evidence | Held: Commission weighed credibility against relator; found relator not credible |
| Standard for mandamus review of Industrial Commission orders | Relator argued commission’s decision was unsupported by evidence and thus mandamus was appropriate | Respondents argued some evidence supports the commission, so mandamus improper | Held: Under Ohio precedent, some evidence supports commission; mandamus denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 72 Ohio St.3d 401 (1995) (employer may bar TTD where discharge for violating a known written rule caused wage loss)
- State ex rel. Ramirez v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.2d 630 (1982) (definition and limits of TTD compensation)
- State ex rel. Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (1986) (mandamus lies only if commission order has no evidentiary support)
- State ex rel. Lewis v. Diamond Foundry Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 56 (1987) (same: some evidence standard bars mandamus relief)