State ex rel. Moffitt v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 7414
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Milton Moffitt (relator) injured his back in 1997; claim allowed for lumbar conditions. He applied for permanent total disability (PTD) on Feb 18, 2015.
- Medical reports: Dr. Ward (Jan 20, 2015) opined Moffitt could not return to sustained remunerative employment and recommended PTD; Dr. Forte (Apr 15, 2015) found Moffitt reached MMI and was capable of sedentary work (10 lb limit, sit 8 hours in 1-hour increments, stand 4 hours total).
- Vocational consultant Molly Williams (May 31, 2015) adopted Dr. Forte’s factual findings and concluded the combined factors supported PTD.
- A Staff Hearing Officer (SHO) granted PTD on July 14, 2015, but the SHO’s order also stated the injured worker “continues to work up to 500 hours per year.”
- The bureau administrator sought reconsideration; the Industrial Commission exercised continuing jurisdiction (Oct. 22, 2015), vacated the SHO’s PTD award as containing a clear mistake of law (awarding PTD while finding the claimant continues to work), and on the merits denied PTD and found voluntary abandonment. Relator sought mandamus to reinstate the SHO order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moffitt) | Defendant's Argument (Commission/Bureau) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the commission abused its discretion by exercising continuing jurisdiction over the SHO's PTD award | The SHO's statement that Moffitt “continues” to work 500 hours/year is a dictation error; the underlying record shows that reference was to Dr. Seymour’s Dec. 5, 2013 note and does not contradict PTD as of Jan. 20, 2015 | The SHO’s express finding that claimant continues to work up to 500 hours/year is inconsistent with a PTD award and is a clear mistake of law warranting continuing jurisdiction | Commission did not abuse discretion; continuing jurisdiction was properly exercised |
| Whether the SHO’s statement was an inadvertent/harmless clerical error that cannot justify reconsideration | The statement is a harmless misstatement and should be read as referring to 2013, not to the PTD adjudication period | The statement, read as written, suggests actual/ability to do sustained remunerative employment, preclusive of PTD | Court rejected relator’s characterization; absence of evidence in the order that it was inadvertent meant it could justify continuing jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Stephenson v. Industrial Commission, 31 Ohio St.3d 167 (1987) (defines PTD as inability to perform sustained remunerative employment)
- State ex rel. Lawson v. Mondie Forge, 104 Ohio St.3d 39 (2004) (identifies bases for terminating PTD: actual sustained employment, physical ability, or activities inconsistent with disability)
- State ex rel. Royal v. Industrial Commission, 95 Ohio St.3d 97 (2002) (lists prerequisites for exercise of continuing jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Gobich v. Industrial Commission, 103 Ohio St.3d 585 (2004) (continuing-jurisdiction prerequisite must be identified and explained in commission order)
- State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Industrial Commission, 98 Ohio St.3d 20 (2002) (activities medically inconsistent with inability to return to former job bar benefits)
- State ex rel. McBee v. Industrial Commission, 132 Ohio St.3d 209 (2012) (unpaid activities that generate income for a separate entity may disqualify claimant)