State ex rel. Vonderheide v. Multi-Color Corp. (Slip Opinion)
128 N.E.3d 188
| Ohio | 2019Background
- Sharon Vonderheide injured at work in 1992; claim approved for back, leg, and knee conditions and she had a right total knee replacement in 2001.
- She began receiving Social Security retirement benefits in 2002 and was found to have reached maximum medical improvement that year; she later did intermittent farm-related work on family farm near Brown County.
- After her husband’s 2009 death she sold cattle and leased the farmland; testimony and tax returns reflected conflicting evidence about the regularity and source of her income through 2012.
- Vonderheide underwent right-knee surgery in July 2012 and requested temporary total disability (TTD) compensation beginning July 31, 2012.
- The Industrial Commission denied TTD, finding she was not in the active workforce and had no wages to replace; the Tenth District granted mandamus reversing the commission, prompting appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Vonderheide's Argument | Industrial Commission's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant was in the active workforce on the surgery date for TTD eligibility | Farm work should count as employment; Tenth Dist. argued federal CPS rules would count her as employed | Claimant was effectively retired/passive investor (took Social Security, leased farm, sporadic chores); insufficient regular, gainful work/wages to replace | Commission’s finding that she was not in active workforce was supported by some evidence; reversal of commission was improper |
| Whether oral argument was warranted on appeal | Requested oral argument (no specific justification) | No extraordinary factors warranting oral argument | Denied; no showing of public importance, complexity, constitutional issue, or intra‑court conflict |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Pierron v. Indus. Comm., 896 N.E.2d 140 (2008) (TTD requires claimant be part of active workforce; no lost earnings if not)
- State ex rel. McCoy v. Dedicated Transport, Inc., 776 N.E.2d 51 (2002) (workers who reenter workforce may qualify for TTD if actively engaged in gainful employment)
- State ex rel. Packaging Corp. of Am. v. Indus. Comm., 13 N.E.3d 1163 (2014) (mandamus review limited to whether commission abused its discretion)
- State ex rel. Perez v. Indus. Comm., 66 N.E.3d 699 (2016) (commission is exclusive factfinder; courts must uphold order supported by some evidence)
- State ex rel. Pass v. C.S.T. Extraction Co., 658 N.E.2d 1055 (1996) (an order supported by some evidence will be upheld)
- State ex rel. Floyd v. Formica Corp., 17 N.E.3d 547 (2014) (claimant’s election to receive retirement benefits can indicate exit from workforce)