State ex rel. Roberts v. Indus. Comm.
2016 Ohio 7570
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Ronald W. Roberts, a former Columbus police officer, sustained work-related head injuries (claims from 1996 and 2003) and receives disability; he manages rental properties part-time and earns about $2,000/month.
- Roberts sought working wage loss (WWL) compensation based on cognitive and depressive conditions and medical restrictions (able to work only 4–6 hours/day).
- A Staff Hearing Officer (SHO) awarded WWL, finding Roberts was working at his "maximum mental and physical level" and that a supplemental job search was not required.
- The Industrial Commission exercised continuing jurisdiction, vacated the SHO order, and denied WWL, concluding the SHO had applied the wrong legal standard (excusing the job-search requirement under Ohio Adm.Code 4125-1-01(D)(1)(c)) and finding inadequate documentation of earnings and causation.
- Roberts filed mandamus relief in the Ohio Court of Appeals (10th Dist.), arguing the commission abused its discretion in invoking continuing jurisdiction. The magistrate and the panel concluded the commission abused its discretion and granted the writ, reinstating the SHO order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roberts) | Defendant's Argument (Industrial Commission) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the commission properly invoked continuing jurisdiction based on a "clear mistake of law" | SHO applied permissible, case-specific analysis excusing a job search given severe cognitive/physical limits; no clear mistake of law | SHO misapplied Ohio Adm.Code job-search rules by using a "maximum mental and physical level" standard instead of requiring a good-faith job search | Commission abused discretion; no clear mistake of law—continuing jurisdiction was improper; SHO order reinstated |
| Whether a claimant with severe cognitive limits may be excused from conducting a job search for WWL | Roberts: mental limitations (memory, concentration, fatigue) can justify excusing a job search under a factspecific inquiry | Commission: administrative rule requires a good-faith job search and SHO failed to apply it; prior precedent requires job-search evidence unless narrow exceptions apply | Court: Excusing a job search is a case-by-case inquiry; SHO reasonably considered mental limitations and applied proper standard in these facts |
| Whether the SHO erred by relying on self-employment earnings without sufficient documentation | Roberts: submitted earnings statements, checks, accountant letter, medical evidence tying restrictions to work capacity | Commission: financial documents insufficient (no tax/accounting records) to verify reported income; suggests voluntary income limitation | Court did not overturn SHO’s factual credibility findings; commission could not vacate SHO order merely by disagreeing with evidentiary weight |
| Standard for invoking continuing jurisdiction (scope) | Roberts: continuing jurisdiction cannot be exercised where adjudicator reasonably applied law to facts | Commission: may correct clear mistakes of law under R.C. 4123.52 | Court: continuing jurisdiction limited; cannot be used to reweigh facts or reverse reasonable legal applications—only for true clear legal errors; here none existed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Royal v. Industrial Commission, 95 Ohio St.3d 97 (2002) (continuing jurisdiction and scope discussion)
- State ex rel. Gobich v. Industrial Commission, 103 Ohio St.3d 585 (2004) (grounds for continuing jurisdiction include clear mistake of law)
- State ex rel. Oldaker v. Industrial Commission, 143 Ohio St.3d 405 (2015) (statutory framework for wage-loss compensation)
- State ex rel. Kovach v. Timken Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 21 (2003) (case-by-case analysis excusing job search in certain circumstances)
- State ex rel. Brinkman v. Industrial Commission, 87 Ohio St.3d 171 (1999) (excusing job search when claimant obtained part-time work with realistic prospect of full-time)
- State ex rel. Yates v. Abbott Laboratories, 95 Ohio St.3d 142 (2002) (job-search necessity is fact-dependent; avoid hard-and-fast rules)
- Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Morse, 72 Ohio St.3d 210 (1995) (overriding concern: wage loss must be necessitated by disability, not lifestyle choice)
- Ooten v. Siegel Interior Specialists Co., 84 Ohio St.3d 255 (1998) (self-employment wage-loss cases often require scrutiny and job search)