State ex rel. Ohio State Univ. v. Pratt
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Mentel
- 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 court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its award of temporary total disability (TTD) compensation to Lori Pratt after July 5, 2017, finding that Pratt voluntarily abandoned her employment for reasons unrelated to her work injury and therefore was ineligible for TTD benefits.
Excerpt
As claimant quit her former position of employment for reasons unrelated to her workplace injury she was ineligible for temporary total disability compensation after the date of her resignation. The relator's limited objection is sustained as magistrate's decision does not contain a clear and definitive determination as to the date at issue. Respondents' objections overruled relator's limited objection sustained writ granted.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Plaintiff filed a wrongful termination case on the basis of racial discrimination as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress and retaliation against The Ohio State University. Plaintiff failed to file within the two year statute of limitation and the longer federal time period in this case is not applicable. Judgment affirmed.
The Unemployment Compensation Review Commission did not err.
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.