State ex rel. Pleasant v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 7130
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Keith Pleasant was awarded TTD through May 26, 2011 and PTD beginning May 27, 2011 for a 2007 work injury.
- BWC's Special Investigations Unit developed a multi-year investigation (invoices, checks, bank records, 1099s, witness statements, SIU spreadsheet) indicating Pleasant received payments from Wehinger/EMS while receiving TTD/PTD.
- BWC moved (Apr. 7, 2014) to find overpayments, terminate PTD, and declare fraud. A single hearing officer (DHO/SHO) denied BWC's requests in July 2014 (finding Pleasant was a conduit who did not perform or keep payments).
- BWC requested reconsideration and appealed; the Commission (interlocutory orders) exercised continuing jurisdiction, consolidated the matters, and heard them Feb. 5, 2015.
- The Commission vacated the SHO orders (May 7, 2015), found clear mistake(s) of fact and fraud based on the documentary and testimonial record, terminated PTD, found TTD overpaid and fraud, and ordered collection. Pleasant filed mandamus; the appellate court denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Commission abuse its discretion by exercising continuing jurisdiction over the July 23, 2014 SHO order (PTD)? | Pleasant: The SHO reasonably weighed evidence; the Commission merely disagreed with an evidentiary interpretation and therefore could not properly invoke continuing jurisdiction. | Commission/BWC: Documentary evidence (hundreds of invoices/checks, bank deposits, 1099s, witness statements, SIU spreadsheet) shows the SHO made a clear mistake of fact in finding Pleasant did not perform or keep payments. | Held: No abuse — Commission identified and explained a clear mistake of fact and permissibly exercised continuing jurisdiction. |
| Did the Commission abuse its discretion by exercising continuing jurisdiction over the October 31, 2014 SHO order (TTD)? | Pleasant: The SHO reasonably credited testimony/affidavits that Pleasant did not keep payments; this was an evidentiary credibility choice the Commission should not overturn. | Commission/BWC: The same documentary evidence shows Pleasant was remunerated / profited from the work; fraud and overpayment findings support continuing jurisdiction. | Held: No abuse — Commission reasonably concluded the SHO erred, found fraud and overpayment, and had probative evidence to invoke continuing jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Nicholls v. Indus. Comm., 81 Ohio St.3d 454 (1998) (continuing-jurisdiction principles referenced)
- State ex rel. Foster v. Indus. Comm., 85 Ohio St.3d 320 (1999) (standards for commission reconsideration)
- State ex rel. Gobich v. Indus. Comm., 103 Ohio St.3d 585 (2004) (requiring the commission to identify and explain prerequisites for continuing jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Royal v. Indus. Comm., 95 Ohio St.3d 97 (2002) (distinguishing clear mistake from mere evidentiary disagreement)
- State ex rel. Lawson v. Mondie Forge, 104 Ohio St.3d 39 (2004) (criteria for terminating PTD: actual sustained remunerative employment, physical ability, or medically inconsistent activities)
- State ex rel. Schultz v. Indus. Comm., 96 Ohio St.3d 27 (2002) (unpaid but potentially remunerative activity may show capacity for sustained remunerative employment)
- State ex rel. McBee v. Indus. Comm., 132 Ohio St.3d 209 (2012) (activities unremunerated can still bar benefits when they directly generate income for a separate entity)