2020 Ohio 2801
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Timothy Knight sustained a work-related injury on March 28, 2017; his claim was allowed for head injury, respiratory and related psychological/neurocognitive conditions.
- Knight returned to work but was terminated on September 14, 2017 after an altercation with his employer, William Welsh; he later entered a criminal plea (apparently no-contest/guilty) and was convicted in November 2017, and an order of protection was entered in December 2017.
- Welsh Enterprises relied on its employee handbook (which lists fighting and criminal conviction as terminable offenses) and other post-termination records (conviction, unemployment denial, protection order) to argue Knight voluntarily abandoned employment and thus was not entitled to temporary total disability (TTD) pay.
- Knight sought TTD beginning March 28, 2018 based on psychological/neurocognitive reports; a District Hearing Officer awarded TTD and a Staff Hearing Officer affirmed, finding Knight credible and concluding employer failed to prove termination for a known, written dischargeable offense.
- The Industrial Commission denied further review; Welsh Enterprises petitioned for a writ of mandamus asking the court to vacate the commission's award.
- The court denied mandamus, holding the commission’s credibility and weighing of evidence were supported by some evidence and are not subject to reversal by the court.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Welsh) | Defendant's Argument (Commission/Knight) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Knight "voluntarily abandoned" employment by being terminated for violating written work rules (fighting/conviction), barring TTD | Termination resulted from Knight's assault on his boss on 9/14/2017; handbook made such conduct dischargeable; conviction, unemployment denial, and protection order confirm the basis | Employer failed to prove contemporaneous, written reason; conviction occurred after firing; Knight testified he acted in self-defense and pled to avoid costs/time; commission found him credible | Denied mandamus: commission's finding that employer did not prove voluntary abandonment was supported by some evidence and rests on credibility determinations reserved to the commission |
| Whether the criminal plea/conviction and protection order are conclusive proof that the firing was for assault | Plea/conviction and protection order establish assault and thus justify termination for policy violation | Guilty/no-contest pleas are not conclusive in civil/admin contexts and may be explained or rebutted; commission accepted Knight's explanation | Court held pleas/conviction not dispositive here; commission permissibly discounted them and credited Knight's testimony |
| Whether appellate court may reweigh evidence/credibility where record contains contrary objective documentation | Court should overturn commission because the objective, non-self-serving record overwhelmingly supports employer | Court lacks authority to reweigh evidence or substitute its judgment; reversal only if no evidence supports commission | Court declined to reweigh; reversal only when commission's finding is supported by no evidence; here some evidence supported the commission |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 72 Ohio St.3d 401 (1995) (establishes that termination for violation of a clearly defined, dischargeable written work rule known to employee can constitute voluntary abandonment barring TTD)
- State ex rel. Ashcraft v. Indus. Comm., 34 Ohio St.3d 42 (1987) (removal from workforce for reasons independent of injury—e.g., incarceration—can preclude TTD)
- State ex rel. Rockwell Internatl. v. Indus. Comm., 40 Ohio St.3d 44 (1988) (retirement causally related to industrial injury is not voluntary abandonment)
- State ex rel. Teece v. Indus. Comm., 68 Ohio St.2d 165 (1981) (commission is the exclusive factfinder; credibility and weight of evidence are for the commission)
- State ex rel. Pass v. C.S.T. Extraction Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 373 (1996) (appellate courts will not substitute their judgment where some evidence supports the commission)
- State ex rel. Vonderheide v. Multi-Color Corp., 156 Ohio St.3d 403 (2019) (reaffirms that the commission has sole responsibility to evaluate weight and credibility of evidence)