State Ex Rel. Lackey v. Industrial Commission
129 Ohio St. 3d 119
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Lackey injured his knee at work in 2001; surgery in 2003 and two months of missed work.
- After returning, he worked full-time for about 15 months and sought to add knee conditions to his claim.
- He filed retirement papers July 27, 2004; retirement effective October 31, 2004, while still working full-time for three more months.
- In August 2004, Lackey’s counsel asserted retirement was due to his injury, but contemporaneous medical evidence showed no impairment affecting his ability to work.
- December 2004, Lackey’s claim was allowed for aggravation of a preexisting condition and other degenerative changes; November 2005 he underwent knee surgery and sought reinstatement of TTC.
- A district hearing officer denied TTC, concluding retirement was unrelated to the injury and that Lackey abandoned the labor market; staff/hearing officers affirmed, and the commission denied further appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lackey is entitled to TTC after retirement | Lackey contends injury-disabled status continued post-retirement. | Commission found retirement unrelated to injury; no ongoing work restriction. | No TTC post-retirement. |
| Whether retirement was caused by the industrial injury | Affidavits show retirement motivated by injury. | Medical evidence at retirement showed no impairment affecting work; retirement unrelated. | Retirement not injury-induced. |
| Whether Lackey abandoned the entire labor market | Despite retirement, he sought other work; not abandonment. | He ceased seeking employment for 17 months; constitutes abandonment. | No full-market abandonment; but no entitlement due to lack of injury-related impairment. |
| Whether the medical evidence supports impairment at retirement | Evidence shows injury contributed to retirement. | Records show continued full-time work up to retirement with no impairment evidence. | Medical evidence did not support impairment at retirement. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Ramirez v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.2d 630 (Ohio 1982) (TTD must arise from the injury and before MMI)
- Fox v. Indus. Comm., 162 Ohio St. 569 (Ohio 1955) (TTD requires ongoing injury-related disability prior to MMI)
- State ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm., 89 Ohio St.3d 376 (Ohio 2000) (Departure from work must be injury-related or involve market abandonment analysis)
- State ex rel. Ashcraft v. Indus. Comm., 34 Ohio St.3d 42 (Ohio 1987) (TTC compensation tied to loss of earnings during healing)
- State ex rel. Cordray v. Indus. Comm., 54 Ohio St.3d 99 (Ohio 1990) (Credibility and weight of evidence are for the commission)
- State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1987) (Commission may reject claimed evidence as unpersuasive)