State ex rel. Pacheco v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 8971
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Relator Alfredo Pacheco suffered a crushing injury to his right foot on May 22, 2012; Alcoa allowed the foot injury and paid TTD through March 30, 2013.
- Treating physician Dr. Wilber released Pacheco to light-duty work with restrictions effective April 1, 2013; Pacheco worked a sedentary/light-duty assignment at Alcoa from April 1–19, 2013.
- On April 22, 2013 Dr. Hochman (new physician) placed Pacheco off work and submitted a C-84 and Medco-14 requesting a new TTD period beginning April 22, 2013.
- Alcoa submitted evidence the light-duty job (sitting in the cafeteria with web-based training/filing; ability to prop the leg; nearby parking) complied with the restrictions; Alcoa did not reduce the offer to writing because Pacheco accepted and worked the assignment.
- The SHO denied the TTD request, finding Dr. Hochman’s opinion unpersuasive and that there was no documented worsening of objective findings — commission denied reconsideration; this mandamus followed.
- The court sustained relator’s objection that the cafeteria assignment was not shown to be an objectively suitable, good-faith job under Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-32(A)(6), granted mandamus to vacate the commission’s denial of reconsideration, and ordered the commission to reconsider (it retains continuing jurisdiction to grant TTD or hold a new hearing).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer had to provide a written job offer under Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-32(A)(6) | Pacheco argued the light-duty assignment was not a legitimate good-faith job so written-offer protections should apply | Alcoa argued written-offer rule triggers only if worker refuses an oral offer and employer intends to seek TTD termination; Pacheco accepted and worked the assignment | Held: No written offer required because Pacheco accepted and worked the oral offer (adm. code applies only when offer refused) |
| Whether some evidence supported the SHO's finding that Dr. Hochman's opinion was unpersuasive and denial of TTD (i.e., commission did not abuse discretion) | Pacheco argued he became medically unable to do even the light-duty work and did not need to show "new and changed circumstances" to obtain a new TTD period | Commission/Alcoa pointed to: (1) Dr. Wilber’s pre-return restrictions similar to Dr. Hochman’s; (2) Pacheco worked ~3 weeks under those restrictions without reporting inability; (3) affidavits/records showing employer compliance with restrictions | Held: Court found some evidence supports the SHO’s weighing and conclusions as to the medical dispute; rejected reweighing evidence on mandamus for this issue |
| Whether the cafeteria/light-duty assignment constituted objectively suitable, good-faith employment under Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-32(A)(6) | Pacheco argued the assignment was essentially "on display" (sitting in cafeteria) and not a legitimate, productive job — thus not objectively suitable or offered in good faith | Alcoa argued the placement accommodated parking/walking constraints, allowed leg elevation, and included web-based training/filing consistent with restrictions | Held: Court sustained this objection — the record lacked evidence that the cafeteria/filing/web‑training placement was objectively suitable and in good faith; commission abused discretion denying reconsideration on that basis |
| Remedy / relief | Pacheco sought mandamus directing the commission to grant TTD beginning April 22, 2013 | Commission argued mandamus inappropriate because some evidence supported denial; credibility issues are for commission | Held: Court granted a writ ordering the commission to vacate its denial-of-reconsideration order and reconsider the SHO decision because there was no evidence that the light-duty job was objectively suitable/good faith; commission retains discretion whether to grant TTD or hold a new hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Robbins & Meyers, Inc., 6 Ohio St.3d 481 (Ohio 1983) (commission’s orders must explain reasoning and evidence relied upon)
- Noll v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 1991) (administrative orders must state evidence relied upon)
- Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (Ohio 1986) (mandamus relief requires showing commission decision lacked some evidence)
- Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18 (Ohio 1987) (commission is factfinder; mandamus limited to "some evidence" review)
- Teece v. Indus. Comm., 68 Ohio St.2d 165 (Ohio 1981) (credibility and weight are commission functions)
- Lewis v. Diamond Foundry Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 56 (Ohio 1987) (presence of some evidence precludes mandamus)
- Ganu v. Willow Brook Christian Communities, 108 Ohio St.3d 296 (Ohio 2006) (written job offer must clearly identify physical demands; cannot be salvaged by employer assurances)
- Coxson v. Dairy Mart Stores of Ohio, Inc., 90 Ohio St.3d 428 (Ohio 2000) (clarity required in written offers of suitable employment)
- Ellis Super Valu, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 115 Ohio St.3d 224 (Ohio 2007) (discusses good-faith and suitability in light-duty offer context)
- Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (Ohio 1983) (mandamus standards: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)