State ex rel. Hildebrand v. Wingate Transport, Inc. (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 167

Background

On June 3, 2009 Hildebrand, a mechanic for Wingate Transport, injured his back at work; the claim for left sacroiliac sprain/strain was later allowed.
On June 9, 2009 he returned to work with a doctor’s note limiting him to modified duty; shortly after arriving he and employer Jeffrey Wingate disputed the use of a Jeep the employer had lent him.
During that dispute Hildebrand gathered tools and was escorted off the premises after police were called; a week later he applied for unemployment and the Department of Job & Family Services found he had quit for personal reasons.
The Industrial Commission denied temporary-total-disability (TTD) compensation, finding Hildebrand voluntarily quit for reasons unrelated to his industrial injury and that the employer had been able to offer light duty.
The Tenth District denied a writ of mandamus compelling the Commission to award TTD; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed, holding the Commission’s finding that Hildebrand voluntarily left for non-injury reasons was supported by the record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hildebrand)	Defendant's Argument (Commission/Wingate)	Held
Whether Hildebrand’s departure precludes TTD when he was medically restricted at the time of separation	Pretty Products doctrine: because he was disabled/under restrictions when separated, he could not have voluntarily abandoned the job and remains eligible for TTD	Hildebrand voluntarily quit for reasons unrelated to the injury, breaking the causal link required for TTD	Court held the record supports voluntary quitting for non-injury reasons, so TTD is barred
Whether Pretty Products applies to a worker who leaves employment (vs. is discharged) while disabled	Pretty Products should apply irrespective of who initiated separation if claimant was already disabled	Pretty Products and its progeny apply to discharges while already receiving TTD; not to voluntary quits before employer offered light duty	Court declined to extend Pretty Products to this context and distinguished its facts
Whether availability of light-duty work is dispositive to TTD eligibility after a voluntary quit	Not dispositive because he was unable to do his former duties when separated	If the quit was voluntary and unrelated to injury, employer’s ability to offer light duty is immaterial to TTD eligibility	Court: because separation was voluntary and not causally related to the injury, availability of light duty is not crucial
Whether Commission abused discretion such that mandamus is warranted	Commission abused discretion by treating the separation as voluntary despite evidence he was escorted off premises	Commission’s factual finding that he quit for non-injury reasons is supported by record; no abuse of discretion	Mandamus denied; Commission did not abuse discretion

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Pretty Products, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 77 Ohio St.3d 5 (1996) (if claimant was already disabled when separation occurred, inquiry into character of departure may be unnecessary)
State ex rel. McCoy v. Dedicated Transport, Inc., 97 Ohio St.3d 25 (2002) (TTD requires that inability to work be caused by industrial injury)
State ex rel. Ashcraft v. Indus. Comm., 34 Ohio St.3d 42 (1987) (voluntary departure generally bars TTD because it severs causal link)
State ex rel. Rockwell Internatl. v. Indus. Comm., 40 Ohio St.3d 44 (1988) (same principle regarding voluntary abandonment and TTD)
State ex rel. OmniSource Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 113 Ohio St.3d 303 (2007) (Pretty Products applied where employee was discharged for violating work rules while disabled)
State ex rel. Luther v. Ford Motor Co., 113 Ohio St.3d 144 (2007) (further inquiry required when discharge may be attributable to industrial injury)
State ex rel. Reitter Stucco, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 117 Ohio St.3d 71 (2008) (upholding TTD where claimant was disabled when fired)
State ex rel. Pierron v. Indus. Comm., 120 Ohio St.3d 40 (2008) (no TTD when worker leaves workforce for reasons unrelated to industrial injury)
State ex rel. Daniels v. Indus. Comm., 99 Ohio St.3d 282 (2003) (discusses termination versus resignation distinctions in context of eligibility issues)