Our Services

Latest News

The Supreme Court finally begins to question the BWC’s “Discretion” in Mandamus cases where the standard is “abuse of discretion.”

Wednesday, August 30, 2023

In two recent decisions it appears that the Supreme Court is taking the BWC to task for what was historically attributed to the BWC’s wide discretion in classifying employers for premium purposes. The Supreme Court is requiring that BWC orders addressing premiums set forth the basis for their decisions rather than pronouncing classification changes.

State ex rel. Auto Zone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Com., 2023-Ohio-633

Monday, July 31, 2023

This decision published by the 10th District Court of Appeals brings new challenges for Employers as if 56(F) which superseded all voluntary abandonment case law wasn’t challenging enough. While the decision is consistent with the application of the law, (i.e. a claimant who was terminated for cause and later had surgery was entitled to temporary total compensation from the date of surgery forward because under the statute the allowed conditions were the disabling cause) the dicta is troubling to say the least. Specifically, the Court discusses termination for cause and did the claimant receive unemployment compensation. At the hearing table, Hearing Officers have been asking what was the reason for the termination, whether the employer contested those payments and whether the claimant ultimately received unemployment compensation. There is nothing in the statute that would allow this line of inquiry nor is it relevant. However, it will be helpful to have this information at hearing. Unfortunately, for any of us who have dealt with unemployment compensation, we are well aware that in only a few limited circumstances are claimants denied unemployment even after it has been contested.  

This Court seems to want it both ways, not applying that portion of the statute that addresses whether the claimant was working prior to the disabling event and then wanting to address the appropriateness of a termination for cause. Their analysis does not apply the second portion of 4123.56(F) which states: “If an employee is not working or has suffered a wage loss as the direct result of reasons unrelated to the allowed injury or occupational disease, the employee is not eligible to receive compensation under this section.” 

Additionally, from a practical standpoint the argument that had they not been terminated we would have had them return to light duty is a difficult argument to make when a legitimate light duty job offer is not proffered to claimant prior to the termination.  

While the Tenth District is not the final word, it will be interesting as to how this will play out in the hearing room. It will be important for employers to provide all documentation for termination/retirement as well as information regarding their dispute of any unemployment compensation to move to apply that second portion of 4123.56(F). 

Not every workers’ compensation claim requires the help of an attorney. But if you need one, choose experience, reputation, and most importantly, someone who understands how you do business.

LL Patterson LLC is founded on the principle of providing clients with exceptional and results oriented service. The singular mission of LLP is to aggressively and exclusively protect Ohio Employers’ rights in workers’ compensation, OSHA, VSSR, and employment related issues. Whether you’re in the medical or healthcare industry, the construction field, education, the corporate world, or small business, the goal remains the same: to reach final closure of your workers’ compensation claim in as little time as possible while minimizing cost.

Lisa L. Patterson understands the complex intricacies of the Ohio workers’ comp system and has sixteen years experience working with this very specific and sensitive form of law. A seasoned Ohio employers’ advocate, she will work to ensure that all parties’ claims are fairly and efficiently executed to protect your interests and assets.