2019 Ohio 2954
Ohio2019Background
- Alfredo Pacheco injured his foot/ankle at work in May 2012; he received TTD benefits and later could not return to his original job.
- Alcoa offered a sedentary light-duty position (computer/web training, paperwork) beginning April 1, 2013; Pacheco worked three weeks and says he was largely idled in the cafeteria.
- On April 22, 2013 Pacheco’s treating physician (Dr. Hochman) checked a box indicating not released for work but also listed restrictions consistent with sedentary duties (sitting, frequent typing, limited walking/standing).
- The Industrial Commission denied a new period of TTD benefits, finding insufficient persuasive medical evidence that Pacheco could not perform the light-duty job; the commission did not address whether the job was offered in good faith.
- The Tenth District held the commission had some evidence to support its medical-fitness finding but concluded Alcoa’s cafeteria placement was not objectively offered in good faith and issued a writ directing the commission to grant TTD or hold a new hearing.
- The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that some evidence supported the commission’s medical-fitness finding, reversed the court of appeals’ good-faith ruling, and issued a limited writ remanding to the commission to decide in the first instance whether Alcoa’s offer was made in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pacheco) | Defendant's Argument (Alcoa/IC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was some evidence that Pacheco was medically able to perform Alcoa’s light-duty job | Dr. Hochman’s opinion and other evidence show he wasn’t released; commission misweighed evidence | Commission relied on multiple physicians and employer statements showing the job fit the restrictions | Court: Some evidence supported commission’s finding that Pacheco could perform the light-duty job (commission not required to reweigh) |
| Whether the commission required a “new and changed circumstances” showing | Commission improperly demanded new/changed circumstances to deny TTD | Commission properly inquired whether claimant’s capabilities had changed after returning to work | Court: Commission applied correct inquiry under R.C. 4123.56(A); no improper new-circumstances standard |
| Whether Alcoa’s light-duty offer must meet the Ohio Adm.Code good-faith requirement despite Pacheco having initially accepted the job | Offer was not made in good faith (cafeteria placement was punitive/display) so TTD should be allowed | Good-faith requirement either applied and met, or does not apply because claimant accepted the job | Court: Good-faith requirement applies; commission failed to address it and must determine in the first instance whether offer was made in good faith |
| Whether the court of appeals should decide good faith or remand to the commission | Court of appeals was correct to decide and order relief | Commission is the primary factfinder and must address good faith first | Court: Tenth District erred to decide good faith; remand ordered for commission to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 591 (2014) (mandamus review examines whether some evidence supports commission order)
- State ex rel. Perez v. Indus. Comm., 147 Ohio St.3d 383 (2016) (commission is exclusive factfinder; courts may not reweigh evidence)
- State ex rel. Ellis Super Valu, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 115 Ohio St.3d 224 (2007) (job-offer good-faith requirement under Ohio Adm.Code must be considered when claim involves refusal/availability of suitable work)
- State ex rel. Metz v. GTC, Inc., 142 Ohio St.3d 359 (2015) (commission need only identify evidence it relied on)
- State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.3d 203 (1991) (commission must state evidence relied upon and reasoning)
- State ex rel. McCoy v. Dedicated Transport, Inc., 97 Ohio St.3d 25 (2002) (voluntary abandonment severs causal link for TTD eligibility)
- State ex rel. Coxson v. Dairy Mart Stores of Ohio, Inc., 90 Ohio St.3d 428 (2000) (requirements for written job offers and clarity of physical demands)
- State ex rel. Jacobs v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 86 (2014) (distinguishing issues when claimant accepted job; procedural context for written offers)
- State ex rel. Klein v. Precision Excavating & Grading Co., 155 Ohio St.3d 78 (2018) (no logical distinction between discharge and voluntary resignation for TTD purposes)