State ex rel. Gonzales v. Morgan
131 Ohio St. 3d 62
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Gonzales suffered a 2003 industrial injury and applied for permanent total disability (PTD) six years later.
- The Industrial Commission found Gonzales physically capable of sedentary work and applied Stephenson nonmedical factors.
- The commission determined Gonzales’s age permitted reemployment and his varied work history favored learning new skills.
- The primary focus was on illiteracy, concluding it impaired sedentary work but outweighed by Gonzales’s failure to engage in rehabilitation.
- Evidence showed two letters in 2004 stated Gonzales was not feasible for rehabilitation due to his decision not to participate or respond to inquiries.
- Gonzales challenged the PTD denial; the Court of Appeals affirmed, citing the commission’s exclusive vocational discretion and Gonzales’s nonparticipation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May nonparticipation in rehabilitation bar PTD when medically able to work? | Gonzales (plaintiff) argues nonparticipation, if voluntary, should not bar PTD where medical capacity exists. | Morgan (defendant) contends rehabilitation participation is a valid consideration under Stephenson factors and can support denial. | Yes; but illiteracy and nonparticipation alone are not dispositive; court retains scrutiny of rehabilitation role |
| Does illiteracy strip claimant of employability for PTD? | Gonzales asserts illiteracy does not automatically negate reemployment potential with retraining. | Morgan emphasizes illiteracy impacts certain sedentary roles but can be mitigated by rehabilitation. | Illiteracy does not render PTD unavoidable; potential for retraining exists |
| What is the proper weight of Stephenson factors when rehabilitation is refused? | Gonzales argues factors should not be overridden by nonparticipation in rehab. | Morgan asserts rehabilitation status and Stephenson factors are decisive when medical capacity exists. | Stephenson factors properly considered; nonparticipation alone may justify denial if other factors indicate no viable return |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Wilson v. Indus. Comm., 80 Ohio St.3d 250 (Ohio 1997) (remedial education recommended; failure to participate supports PTD denial)
- State ex rel. Speelman v. Indus. Comm., 73 Ohio App.3d 757 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992) (retooling to return to job market if skills may be developed)
- State ex rel. Nissin Brake Ohio, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 127 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2010) (distinction between medically vs vocationally directed rehab; effect on PTD)
- State ex rel. Stephenson v. Indus. Comm., 31 Ohio St.3d 167 (Ohio 1987) (establishes nonmedical factors in PTD analysis)