“THE DEATH OF VOLUNTARY ABANDONMENT HAS BEEN GREATLY “EXAGGERATED.”
To borrow a line from Mark Twain, Employers will be excited to hear that “voluntary abandonment” is not dead.
Since the advent of ORC 4123.56 (September 23, 2022) the statute governing the payment of temporary total compensation, Injured Workers’ counsel has seized on this language in the statute:
It is the intent of the general assembly to supersede any previous judicial decision that applied the doctrine of voluntary abandonment to a claim brought under this section.
Repeatedly, Injured Workers’ counsels have argued at hearing that this language means that voluntary abandonment no longer exists as a defense. Instead, the only inquiry is whether the allowed conditions in the claim prevent the Injured Worker from performing his position of employment.
The Supreme Court has addressed this consideration in its November 26, 2024, decision, State ex rel. AutoZone Stores Inc. v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5519. In this case IW Schomaker had an allowed claim for various right arm and shoulder conditions for a date of injury of June 15, 2020. He returned to light duty until he had an altercation with a co-worker, and he was subsequently fired on September 5, 2020. After undergoing surgery on November 16, 2020, Schomaker requested temporary total compensation from the date of surgery and continuing. The SHO of the Industrial Commission granted temporary total compensation from the date of surgery and continuing based upon submission of the appropriate medical evidence.
The Employer filed an action in mandamus requesting that the SHO order be vacated based upon a misapplication of O.R.C. 4123.56(F). The Supreme Court addressed head on Schomaker’s contention that R.C. 4123.56(F) “specifically supersedes the doctrine of voluntary abandonment and prohibits” any test that would required a similar kind of analysis. Schomaker argued that there did not need to be an analysis of an employee’s reasons for not working in determining his entitlement to temporary total compensation. The Supreme Court disagreed stating that “superseding the voluntary -abandonment decisions under the third sentence of R.C. 4123.56 (F) does not eliminate the requirement of a causal relationship between the allowed injury and an actual loss of earnings.” Instead, the statute “replaces the voluntary -abandonment decisions with a “direct result” requirement, clarifying that the claimed loss of wages or inability to work must be directly caused by an “impairment arising from an injury” and not by “reasons unrelated to the allowed injury.”
The Supreme Court ruled that because he was not working at the time of his shoulder surgery on November 16, 2020, he was not entitled to receive temporary total compensation from the date of his shoulder surgery through the date of hearing. The Court reflected that the very purpose of temporary total compensation payments is to replace earnings lost while the allowed injury heals. As Schomaker, was not working at the time of his surgery, there were no wages to replace.
It is unclear what implications this will have at the hearing table and I suspect that this will follow the long tradition of the new O.R.C. 4123.56 which will produce mixed results at the Industrial Commission.
Practical Take-away:
When the issue is entitlement to temporary total compensation and the Injured Worker has been terminated, it will be important to have all necessary termination documentation, violation of policy prompting termination and employee acknowledgment.