State ex rel. Floyd v. Formica Corp. (Slip Opinion)
140 Ohio St. 3d 260
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Floyd injured at Formica in 2000; light-duty work until Jan 2001, then none available.
- He began receiving temporary-total-disability (TTD) benefits after Jan 2001 and started Social Security retirement in May 2001.
- TTD continued until 2006; in 2007 he withdrew a prior permanent-total-disability (PTD) application.
- After additional surgery in 2008, Floyd again received TTD until his condition reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) in 2009.
- In 2010 Floyd sought TTD again; the staff hearing officer denied eligibility, finding he had abandoned the workforce.
- Appellate courts held the commission properly found voluntary abandonment of the entire job market in 2001; mandamus denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether abandonment of the entire job market in 2001 bars 2010 TTD eligibility | Floyd contends no need to search for work; medical status governs | Commission properly found abandonment based on retirement and lack of work | Abandonment exists; Floyd not eligible for TTD in 2010 |
| Role of not seeking other employment after retirement as abandonment evidence | Floyd did not need to seek work during TTD periods | Failure to seek work after retirement shows intent to abandon workforce | Evidence supports abandonment finding |
| Whether Floyd was medically capable of light-duty work post-2001 | Multiple surgeries indicate inability to work | No medical evidence proving ongoing incapacity after leaving Formica | Medical capacity shown only when light-duty failed; abandonment still controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierron v. Indus. Comm., 120 Ohio St.3d 40 (2008-Ohio-5245) (failure to seek other employment after retirement indicates abandonment of workforce)
- Lackey v. Indus. Comm., 129 Ohio St.3d 119 (2011-Ohio-3089) (retirement with no further work evidence abandonment; postretirement eligibility hinges on ability to work elsewhere)
- Corman v. Allied Holdings, Inc., 132 Ohio St.3d 202 (2012-Ohio-2579) (voluntary retirement while TT disability; no work sought; abandonment precludes TT benefits)
- Baker v. Indus. Comm., 89 Ohio St.3d 376 (2000-Ohio-) (TTD eligibility tied to ongoing workforce status; retirement can foreclose eligibility)
- Diversitech Gen. Plast. Film Div. v. Indus. Comm., 45 Ohio St.3d 381 (1989-Ohio-) (abandonment of entire workforce is a key factual question for eligibility)