Skip to main content

State ex rel. Alesci v. Indus. Comm.

OhioNovember 13, 2002No. 2001-1771Cited 13 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the Industrial Commission's termination of the claimant's permanent total disability compensation and declaration of overpayment, finding that the claimant had engaged in and demonstrated capacity for sustained remunerative employment.

Excerpt

Workers' compensation—Permanent total disability compensation terminated and overpayment declared by Industrial Commission when claimant performed sustained remunerative employment while receiving permanent total disability compensation and Disabled Workers' Relief Fund benefits.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** A worker in Ohio was receiving permanent total disability payments from workers' compensation, meaning the state determined they couldn't work due to their injury. However, the Industrial Commission of Ohio discovered that this worker was actually performing paid work while collecting these disability benefits. The Commission then stopped the worker's disability payments and declared that they had been overpaid, demanding money back. **What the Court Decided** The Ohio Supreme Court sided with the Industrial Commission. The court agreed that the worker's ability to perform sustained paid work proved they were not permanently and totally disabled. Therefore, the Commission was correct to terminate the disability benefits and declare an overpayment. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling shows that workers receiving permanent total disability benefits must be completely unable to work. If you can perform any sustained paid employment while on these benefits, you risk losing them and may have to pay money back. Workers should understand that disability benefits are strictly monitored, and working while claiming total disability can have serious financial consequences. Always consult with the workers' compensation system before taking any employment while receiving disability benefits.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

State ex rel. Bonnlander v. Hamon (Slip Opinion)
OhioSep 2020

Workers' compensation—Whether a claimant has voluntarily retired or has abandoned the workforce is a question of fact for the Industrial Commission to determine—A court must uphold a factual determination by the commission so long as it is supported by some evidence in the record, regardless of whether evidence supporting a contrary conclusion also exists, even if the contrary evidence is greater in quality or quantity—Court of appeals' judgment affirmed.

Defendant Win
Hamon
Ohio Ct. App.Sep 2019

Under State ex rel. McKee v. Union Metal Corp., 150 Ohio St.3d 223, 2017-Ohio-5541, ¶ 9-11, the commission's order denying permanent total disability compensation was supported by some evidence in the record showing that relator voluntarily abandoned the workforce and was therefore not eligible for benefits. As a result, relator was not entitled to relief in mandamus. Id. at ¶ 11. Objections sustained writ denied.

Defendant Win
State ex rel. Pritt v. Indus. Comm.
Ohio Ct. App.Mar 2018

Because some evidence in the record supports the commission finding relator is medically capable of engaging in sustained remunerative employment of a sedentary nature and the relevant nonmedical disability factors do not preclude relator from currently engaging in such employment, the fact that the commission incorrectly relied on relator's non-allowed conditions as a basis for denying PTD in a separate portion of the order does not constitute grounds for the granting of a writ of mandamus. Writ denied.

Defendant Win
State ex rel. Haydocy v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys.
OhioMay 2026
Defendant Win
State ex rel. AutoZone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
OhioNov 2024

Workers' compensation—Temporary-total-disability compensation—R.C. 4123.56—Employee who had already been terminated for violation of employment policies before his shoulder surgery was not "unable to work" as "direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease" under plain language of R.C. 4123.56(F) and thus was not entitled to receive temporary-total-disability compensation—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and writ granted.

Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.