State ex rel. James v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Slip Opinion)
149 Ohio St. 3d 700
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Norman James injured his neck in a 2004 work incident; claim allowed for neck spasm, mechanical complication of internal orthopedic device, and later aggravation of preexisting cervical canal stenosis.
- James returned to Wal‑Mart in 2005, quit in April 2007 to seek other work, then worked briefly for Petco and Casper; Casper fired him for excessive absenteeism on November 16, 2007.
- James filed for temporary‑total‑disability (TTD) benefits beginning November 17, 2007; the Industrial Commission denied benefits, citing inconsistent medical evidence and questions about a June 2007 auto accident.
- On a later TTD application, a hearing officer denied benefits for Sept. 30, 2009–Apr. 15, 2010, concluding James was not employed when disability recurred and had voluntarily abandoned his prior job.
- The court of appeals granted a limited writ directing the commission to revisit facts surrounding the end of James’s employment at Casper; the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed that part of the judgment and denied the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (James) | Defendant's Argument (Wal‑Mart/IC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether James voluntarily abandoned his Wal‑Mart job | James impliedly argued his departures and later disability should not bar TTD | Wal‑Mart/IC: James voluntarily quit Wal‑Mart for other employment and gave no evidence the injury caused that quit | Held: James voluntarily quit Wal‑Mart; commission did not abuse discretion |
| Whether claimant is eligible for TTD when not employed at recurrence of disability | James argued Estes Express supports eligibility despite unemployment if layoff/termination not voluntary | Wal‑Mart/IC: TTD requires claimant be removed from a job by injury; James was not working when disability began and offered no causal evidence | Held: TTD denied—no evidence he was working when disability recurred and no proof absences were injury‑related |
| Whether Estes Express (laid‑off worker still eligible) applied here | James: court of appeals thought Estes might apply and ordered further factual development about Casper termination | Wal‑Mart/IC: Estes is distinguishable because claimant here was fired for absenteeism, not laid off | Held: Estes inapplicable; Eckerly controlling—need a job at onset of disability or employer‑initiated separation plus medical proof |
| Whether commission abused discretion by denying benefits without further developing Casper termination facts | James: appellate court said commission should further address Casper termination | Wal‑Mart/IC: No need; record shows termination for absenteeism with no evidence tying absences to industrial injury | Held: Commission did not abuse discretion; no further development required and writ denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Eckerly v. Indus. Comm., 105 Ohio St.3d 428 (2005) (TTD unavailable where claimant had no job when alleged disability began)
- State ex rel. McCoy v. Dedicated Transport, Inc., 97 Ohio St.3d 25 (2002) (TTD requires medical inability to perform former job and that industrial injury caused loss of earnings)
- State ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm., 89 Ohio St.3d 376 (2000) (voluntary abandonment of employment bars TTD)
- State ex rel. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 81 Ohio St.3d 56 (1998) (claimant bears burden to prove causation for lost earnings)
- Avalon Precision Casting Co. v. Indus. Comm., 109 Ohio St.3d 237 (2006) (mandamus requires showing commission abused discretion by entering an order unsupported by any evidence)