State ex rel. Huntington Bancshares Inc. v. Berry, 2022 Ohio 531

Laura Berry began work at Huntington on May 7, 2018 and suffered a work injury on June 12, 2018 after about six weeks of employment.
Berry asked the BWC to set her AWW equal to her full weekly wage, claiming prior-year income from caregiving for her mother-in-law ($3,000/month) and craft sales; she submitted an affidavit but no tax returns or checks.
A DHO granted Berry’s motion and set AWW at $742.02 by averaging the claimed caregiving income (but excluded craft sales for lack of expense proof).
On appeal, an SHO rejected Berry’s undocumented caregiving wage evidence, characterized the prior year as a period in which Berry had been out of the workforce caring for an ill family member, excluded 46 weeks under the special-circumstances provision, and computed AWW by dividing Huntington wages by 6, yielding $597.48.
Huntington sought mandamus relief, arguing the commission lacked evidence to apply the special-circumstances exception and should have used the 52-week divisor; the Tenth District denied the writ, finding some evidence supported the commission’s decision and deferring to its credibility determinations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether commission properly departed from 52‑week AWW formula	Magistrate/commission misapplied law; special‑circumstances exception inapplicable	SHO applied special‑circumstances because Berry recently reentered workforce after long caregiving absence	Court: SHO applied special‑circumstances and had discretion to do so; some evidence supported departure
Whether there was evidence Berry was effectively unemployed the prior year	Berry’s testimony of caregiving wages without documentation cannot prove unemployment or justify excluding weeks	Commission rejected the undocumented wage testimony as not credible; remaining credible record showed an absence from the workforce caring for family while seeking work	Court: credibility and weight are for the commission; some evidence supports finding she was out of workforce and seeking employment
Whether relator is entitled to mandamus (abuse of discretion/some evidence)	Huntington: commission abused discretion; no evidence supports using a 6‑week divisor; mandamus should issue	Commission: has broad discretion; record contains some evidence supporting the AWW determination; mandamus inappropriate	Court: Mandamus denied—relator did not show a clear legal right because decision was supported by some evidence

State ex rel. Wireman v. Indus. Comm., 49 Ohio St.3d 286 (Ohio 1990) (AWW should approximate pre‑injury earnings)
State ex rel. Clark v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.3d 563 (Ohio 1994) (standard 52‑week calculation and guidance on special‑circumstances exception)
State ex rel. Riley v. Indus. Comm., 9 Ohio App.3d 71 (10th Dist. 1983) (recent entry into workforce can justify special‑circumstances AWW calculation)
Smith v. Indus. Comm., 25 Ohio St.3d 25 (Ohio 1986) (excluding loss‑producing weeks avoids inequitable AWW results)
State ex rel. Baker Concrete Constr., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 102 Ohio St.3d 149 (Ohio 2004) (unemployment exception requires unemployment be beyond claimant’s control)
State ex rel. Ohio State Univ. Hosp. v. Indus. Comm., 118 Ohio St.3d 170 (Ohio 2008) (emphasizes forward‑looking nature of AWW)
State ex rel. Hutton v. Indus. Comm., 29 Ohio St.2d 9 (Ohio 1972) (mandamus standard — court may issue writ if commission abused discretion)
State ex rel. Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (Ohio 1986) (mandamus requires showing commission order lacked some evidentiary support)