State ex rel. Bonnlander v. Hamon

Ohio Ct. App.September 24, 2019No. 18AP-501Cited 2 times

Defendant WinIndustrial Commission of Ohio

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s): Sadler
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.

Claim Types

Wrongful Termination

Outcome

The court denied the relator's writ of mandamus and upheld the Industrial Commission of Ohio's denial of permanent total disability compensation, finding the relator voluntarily abandoned the workforce.

Excerpt

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.

What This Ruling Means

# Case Summary: State ex rel. Bonnlander v. Hamon **What Happened** A worker named Bonnlander filed a claim seeking permanent total disability compensation through Ohio's Industrial Commission. The Commission rejected the claim, and Bonnlander challenged that decision in court. **The Court's Decision** The appeals court sided with the Industrial Commission and denied Bonnlander's request for relief. The court found evidence that Bonnlander had voluntarily left the workforce, which made him ineligible for permanent total disability benefits under Ohio law. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling clarifies that workers cannot receive permanent total disability compensation if they voluntarily abandon their job. To qualify for these benefits, workers must demonstrate they're unable to work due to a workplace injury—not by choice. Workers should understand that leaving a job voluntarily, even after an injury, may affect their eligibility for disability benefits. If you've been injured at work, it's important to carefully consider the impact of leaving employment before doing so.

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

Browse more:Wrongful Termination cases

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

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

Con Ed v. NLRB

U.S. Supreme CourtDec 1938

Mixed Result

Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

U.S. Supreme CourtFeb 1951

Read Full Opinion More Industrial Commission of Ohio Rulings All Rulings

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.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

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.