State Ex Rel. Jenkins v. Indus. Comm'n of Ohio
2017 Ohio 7896
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Ralph Jenkins (relator) filed a third application for permanent total disability (PTD) based on a 2003 allowed work injury (shoulder and cervical conditions); prior PTD applications in 2013 and 2014 were denied based on medical reports finding medium work capacity.
- In 2015 the Commission-ordered exam by Dr. Cunningham found Jenkins limited to sedentary work; an unrecorded hearing followed on November 12, 2015.
- The staff hearing officer (SHO) denied the 2015 PTD application solely on the ground that Jenkins had voluntarily abandoned the workforce (he retired and began receiving Social Security retirement in 2011) — an issue not raised at hearing by the BWC representative or the SHO according to Jenkins.
- Jenkins timely sought reconsideration, asserting he had no notice or opportunity at hearing to rebut the workforce-abandonment finding; the full Commission denied reconsideration.
- Jenkins filed this mandamus action arguing the Commission violated his procedural due-process rights by adjudicating workforce abandonment sua sponte without giving him notice and an opportunity to present evidence; the magistrate and this court agreed and granted a limited writ directing the Commission to vacate the SHO order and allow proceedings to rebut abandonment.
Issues
| Issue | Jenkins' Argument | Commission's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether adjudicating PTD denial on voluntar y workforce abandonment without prior notice violated due process | SHO/Commission raised abandonment only in the written order after an unrecorded hearing; Jenkins had no opportunity to rebut | Voluntary abandonment is always part of a PTD analysis and the Commission may raise it sua sponte | Held for Jenkins: due process requires notice and opportunity to address abandonment when raised after hearing; SHO order vacated and remanded to allow rebuttal |
| Who bears burden to prove workforce abandonment | Jenkins: employer/administrator bears burden as abandonment is an affirmative defense; Jenkins should have opportunity to rebut | Commission: abandonment can be considered in any PTD adjudication and may be raised sua sponte | Held: abandonment is an affirmative defense; burden ordinarily falls on employer/administrator, but Commission may raise it sua sponte — still must give notice/opportunity to rebut |
| Whether Quarto Mining precludes Commission from raising abandonment sua sponte | Jenkins: Quarto places burden on employer; therefore Commission cannot deny PTD on abandonment without it being raised | Commission cited Quarto but argued issue may be inherent to PTD adjudication | Held: Quarto assigns burden to employer to prove abandonment, but does not prohibit the Commission from raising the issue sua sponte; procedural protections (notice/opportunity) still required |
| Whether State ex rel. Roxbury controlled resolution of abandonment here | Jenkins: Roxbury analysis not applied because Jenkins lacked opportunity to address abandonment | Commission: magistrate should have applied Roxbury guidance on factors to consider | Held: Roxbury concerns what may be considered in determining abandonment, but it is inapplicable until claimant has had a chance to contest the abandonment allegation; magistrate correctly focused on due process first |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v. Foreman, 79 Ohio St.3d 78 (burden to raise/produce evidence of retirement/abandonment rests on employer once claimant establishes causal link)
- State ex rel. Canter v. Indus. Comm., 28 Ohio St.3d 377 (agency may not rely on evidence developed after hearing without giving party opportunity to rebut)
- State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.3d 202 (retirement before PTD requires voluntary abandonment of entire job market to bar PTD)
- State ex rel. Roxbury v. Indus. Comm., 138 Ohio St.3d 91 (factors and evidence the Commission may consider when deciding voluntary workforce abandonment)
- State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 (standard for mandamus and required clear-and-convincing proof)
- State ex rel. Finley v. Dusty Drilling Co., 2 Ohio App.3d 323 (procedural due process requires reasonable notice of subject matter and opportunity to be heard)