State ex rel. Bonnlander v. Harmon (Slip Opinion)
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- O'Connor, O'Donnell, Kennedy, French, O'Neill, Fischer, Dewine
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Industrial Commission's denial of permanent total disability benefits, holding that there is no hourly standard for determining part-time work capability and that the commission properly relied on expert testimony showing the claimant could perform up to four hours of sedentary work daily.
Excerpt
Workers' compensation-Permanent total disability-There is no hourly standard for determining one's capability to perform sustained remunerative employment on part-time basis-Commission decides whether a claimant is capable of sustained remunerative employment on case-by-case basis-Commission did not abuse its discretion in relying on expert's report to find that claimant was capable of up to four hours of sedentary work a day-Court of appeals' judgment denying writ of mandamus affirmed.
Similar Rulings
Workers' compensation—Total-temporary-disability compensation—R.C. 4123.511(K) requires Bureau of Workers' Compensation to recoup overpayment of total-temporary-disability compensation paid to an injured worker between time injured worker reached maximum medical improvement and date of termination of total-temporary-disability compensation—Court of appeals' judgment denying writ of mandamus affirmed—State ex rel. Russell v. Indus. Comm. overruled.
<bold>Workers' Compensation — Causation — fibromyalgia — doctor's opinion</bold> <bold>testimony</bold> <block_quote> The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that competent evidence was presented to support the Industrial Commission's findings of fact with regard to the cause of plaintiff-employee's fibromyalgia based solely on the opinion testimony of one doctor.</block_quote>
<bold>1. Workers' Compensation — Seagraves test — injured employee's</bold> <bold>right to continuing benefits — termination for misconduct</bold> <block_quote> Our Supreme Court adopts the <italic>Seagraves</italic>, <cross_reference>123 N.C. App. 228</cross_reference> (2003), test for determining an injured employee's right to continuing workers' compensation benefits after being terminated for misconduct whereby an employer must demonstrate initially that the employee was terminated for misconduct, the same misconduct would have resulted in the termination of a nondisabled employee, and the termination was unrelated to the employee's compensable injury, in order to find that an employee constructively refused suitable work, thus barring workers' compensation benefits for lost earnings unless the employee is then able to show that his inability to find or hold other employment at a wage comparable to that earned prior to the injury is due to the work-related injury.</block_quote> <bold>2. Workers' Compensation — constructive refusal of suitable</bold> <bold>employment — termination for misconduct unrelated to</bold> <bold>workplace injuries</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission erred in a workers' compensation case by concluding that defendant employer met its burden of providing competent evidence that plaintiff employee's failure to perform her UPC labeling duties was not related to her prior compensable injury under workers' compensation, which thereby led to her termination for misconduct and denial of additional workers' compensation benefits based on an alleged failure to accept a suitable position reasonably offered by her employer, because: (1) the evidence relied upon by the Commission's majority indicated that plaintiff was having continuing problems in the wake of, and as a result of, her injuries; (2) there was no competent evidence referenced in the Commission's opinion and award that supported a showing by defendant employer that
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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.