State ex rel. Vonderheide v. Multi-Color Corp., 2018 Ohio 1714

Background

Sharon Vonderheide sustained an industrial injury in 1992; her claim was allowed for multiple lumbar and knee conditions and she previously received TTD until reaching MMI in 2002.
She began Social Security retirement benefits in 2002 and participated in, then withdrew from, vocational rehabilitation in 2003.
Vonderheide had two right-knee surgeries in 2012 and in January 2013 her claim was amended to include right knee infection/hardware; she sought reinstatement of TTD starting July 31, 2012.
To support TTD she submitted medical records, tax summaries, IRS transcripts showing rent/royalty/partnership/estate income, and affidavits (herself and her son) asserting she worked on and helped run the family farm through July 2012.
The DHO and an SHO denied TTD, finding she had not shown she was in the active workforce or had wages to replace as of July 31, 2012; the SHO characterized the farm as a passive investment and questioned the tax evidence and credibility.
The court of appeals reviewed the magistrate's recommendation, sustained Vonderheide's objection, and granted a writ ordering the commission to vacate the SHO order, holding the commission abused its discretion by disregarding unrefuted evidence of farm work.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Vonderheide in the active workforce immediately before July 31, 2012 for TTD eligibility?	Vonderheide: affidavits, testimony, and tax materials show she worked on and helped run the family farm through July 2012.	Commission: she received Social Security retirement since 2002, tax records do not show farm income, she did not live on the farm, income was irregular, and the farm was a passive investment.	Court: Held commission abused its discretion by focusing on missing evidence and not crediting unrefuted evidence of farm employment; farm work can constitute employment even without regular pay.
Whether lack of a regular paycheck precludes being in the workforce for TTD purposes	Vonderheide: Bureau of Labor Statistics definitions show farm/self‑employment is counted even without paychecks; unpaid or irregular farm labor can be employment.	Commission: absence of regular wages and conflicting tax records indicate no wages to replace.	Court: Held that farm employment may not produce regular pay but still counts as being in the workforce; commission erred by treating lack of paycheck as dispositive.
Whether commission may rely on claimant's receipt of Social Security retirement as dispositive that claimant left workforce	Vonderheide: receipt of Social Security retirement does not automatically mean cessation of farm work.	Commission: Social Security retirement plus lack of corroborating evidence supports finding she left the workforce.	Court: Held commission erred to treat Social Security retirement as dispositive when unrefuted evidence showed continuing farm work.
Standard for mandamus review of commission TTD denials	Vonderheide: SHO decision lacked "some evidence" supporting denial.	Commission: credibility and weight determinations are within commission; record contained conflicting evidence.	Court: Held the commission's decision was not supported by some evidence because it improperly disregarded claimant's unrefuted farm‑work evidence; mandamus granted.

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Pierron v. Indus. Comm., 120 Ohio St.3d 40 (addresses that TTD requires claimant be part of active workforce)
State ex rel. Corman v. Allied Holdings, Inc., 132 Ohio St.3d 202 (discusses standards for compensability and workforce status)
State ex rel. Hoffman v. Rexman Beverage Can Co., 137 Ohio St.3d 129 (treatment of evidence and entitlement to compensation)
State ex rel. Ramirez v. Indus. Comm., 69 Ohio St.2d 630 (definition and duration of TTD compensation under R.C. 4123.56)
State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18 (mandamus arises when commission decision lacks some evidence)
State ex rel. Lewis v. Diamond Foundry Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 56 (record containing some evidence defeats mandamus)
State ex rel. Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (mandamus standard: commission abused discretion when decision unsupported by any evidence)
State ex rel. Teece v. Indus. Comm., 68 Ohio St.2d 165 (credibility and weight of evidence are for the commission)
State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (mandamus prerequisites against the commission)