State ex rel. Perez v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5084

Manuel A. Perez was injured at work in 2002 and was placed on temporary-total-disability (TTD) benefits for psychological conditions beginning July 28, 2007 (relevant period Sept. 14, 2007–Oct. 3, 2011).
Perez previously owned and operated an auto-repair business located in the garage of his residence; he lived above the shop.
The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Special Investigations Unit (SIU) received tips and conducted surveillance showing Perez in the garage interacting with customers, looking under hoods, performing repairs, ordering/picking up parts, scheduling work, and receiving payments.
Records showed Perez purchased over $43,000 in auto parts during the relevant period and customers and a parts-store manager reported dealing directly with him.
The Industrial Commission found Perez was overpaid TTD benefits for the period and that he committed fraud by knowingly misrepresenting he had not worked since 2003.
The court of appeals affirmed the overpayment finding but granted a writ of mandamus directing the commission to vacate its fraud finding; the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the overpayment ruling and reversed the mandamus as to fraud.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Perez)	Defendant's Argument (Industrial Commission / Bureau)	Held
Whether Perez was working during the TTD period (overpayment)	His activities were unpaid, minimal, and indirect (like Ford and Honda), not income-producing work.	His customer-facing and operational activities (ordering parts, scheduling, repairs, taking payments) directly generated income for the business.	Commission’s finding of overpayment affirmed: evidence supported income-producing activity.
Whether Perez’s misrepresentations to the commission and physicians constituted fraud	He did not knowingly misrepresent because his activities were not work or he was unaware unpaid activities could be considered work.	Multiple C-84 forms stated he had not worked since 2003 and he minimized activities to physicians — showing knowing concealment.	Commission’s fraud finding upheld: record supports knowing misrepresentation; court of appeals erred in ordering vacation of fraud finding.

State ex rel. McBee v. Indus. Comm., 132 Ohio St.3d 209, 970 N.E.2d 937 (2012) (unpaid activities that directly generate income can constitute "work" for TTD eligibility and fraud requires awareness those activities could be considered work)
State ex rel. Honda of Am. Mfg. Co. v. Indus. Comm., 113 Ohio St.3d 5, 862 N.E.2d 478 (2007) (mere presence or goodwill-promoting activities at a business may not disqualify TTD if they only indirectly generate income)
State ex rel. Ford Motor Co. v. Indus. Comm., 98 Ohio St.3d 20, 780 N.E.2d 1016 (2002) (minimal, indirect involvement in a business that does not itself generate income does not disqualify TTD)
State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 508 N.E.2d 936 (1987) (commission is exclusive factfinder; courts must defer to its credibility and weight determinations)
State ex rel. Pass v. C.S.T. Extraction Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 373, 658 N.E.2d 1055 (1996) (appellate courts should not substitute their judgment for commission’s factual findings)
State ex rel. Lawson v. Mondie Forge, 104 Ohio St.3d 39, 817 N.E.2d 880 (2004) (commission has leeway to interpret and draw inferences from the evidence)