Skip to main content

State ex rel. Demellweek v. Indus. Comm.

Ohio Ct. App.February 27, 2018No. 16AP-874
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Tyack
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Writ of mandamus proceeding; case remanded to Industrial Commission for further review

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Writ granted to remand the issue of entitlement to temporary total disability compensation to the Industrial Commission for further review, as evidence did not support a finding of voluntary abandonment of employment.

Excerpt

Evidence before the Industrial Commission did not support the finding that claimant voluntarily abandoned his employment. Writ granted to return the issue of entitlement to temporary total disability compensation to the commission for further review.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** A worker named Demellweek was injured on the job and applied for workers' compensation benefits, specifically temporary total disability payments that help replace wages when someone can't work due to a workplace injury. However, the Industrial Commission of Ohio denied his claim, arguing that he had voluntarily quit his job rather than being unable to work due to his injury. **What the Court Decided** The Ohio Court of Appeals sided with the worker. The court found that there wasn't enough evidence to prove Demellweek had voluntarily abandoned his job. The court sent the case back to the Industrial Commission, ordering them to reconsider whether the worker deserves temporary disability compensation. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling protects injured workers from having their benefits wrongly denied. Employers and workers' compensation agencies sometimes claim that workers "quit" their jobs to avoid paying benefits, but they must have solid evidence to make this argument. Workers who are genuinely injured and unable to work shouldn't lose their compensation simply because an agency makes unsupported claims about job abandonment. This decision reinforces that proper evidence is required before denying 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
Papp v. Cuyahoga Cty.
Ohio Ct. App.Jun 2026
Defendant Win
Yormick v. King David Post Acute Nursing & Rehab., L.L.C.
Ohio Ct. App.May 2026
Plaintiff 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.