On November 26, 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in State ex rel. Auto Zone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (2024-Ohio-5519). This is the Court’s first decision interpreting the 2020 amendment to the temporary total disability (“TTD”) compensation statute, R.C. 4123.56(F), and the result is a victory for Ohio employers!
Specifically, the Court found that, for an injured worker to be eligible for TTD, they must prove that their inability to work or wage loss is directly caused by the injury itself and not by “reasons unrelated to the allowed injury.” This finding provides much-needed guidance regarding the amended statute, which supersedes all prior voluntary abandonment case law. The Court specifically indicated that 4123.56 (F) replaces the voluntary abandonment doctrine with a direct result requirement — there must be a direct causal connection between a claimant’s inability to work or wage loss and the allowed injury for TTD to be awarded.
By way of background, the claimant in State ex rel. Auto Zone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (“Shomaker”) injured his shoulder at work with AutoZone on June 15, 2020. Following the injury, he returned to work in a light-duty position. He was then involved in an altercation with a co-worker on September 5, 2020, and was terminated for violating the employer’s policy on September 16, 2020.
On November 16, 2020, the claimant underwent approved right shoulder surgery related to the claim and filed for TTD from the date of surgery forward. The claimant’s position was that the statutory amendment to 4123.56 (F) abolished the voluntary abandonment defense and supported the payment of TTD from the date of surgery. The Industrial Commission awarded the compensation following the surgery, and the employer appealed to the 10th District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the SHO order.
Following its review, the Ohio Supreme Court vacated and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court found that the claimant was not entitled to TTD because his inability to work, or his wage loss, was not the direct result of his allowed work injury but was caused by “reasons unrelated to the allowed injury.” The Court concluded that the time before a requested period of TTD is relevant to determining causation regarding a claimant’s inability to work. In this case, the Court found that the claimant’s termination was the reason he was not working, and the termination was not related to the claim. The termination occurred before the requested surgery, and the claimant had never re-entered the workforce and was not working at the time of surgery. The Court specifically stated that a person must be employed to be eligible to receive compensation for loss of earnings and that this is a basic tenet of TTD compensation, which predates and transcends the voluntary abandonment doctrine.
It is therefore important to analyze whether a person is in the workforce at the time of a request for temporary total compensation, and if not, why not? If they are not working for reasons unrelated to the claim, there may be a good defense to the request for compensation. Even though the voluntary abandonment case law is “superseded” by 4123.56 (F), the Supreme Court still refers to many of the principles in cases such as Louisiana Pacific and McCoy, and these prior decisions are quoted by the Supreme Court in AutoZone. The implication is that if the claimant is off work for violating a work rule and never re-enters the workforce, they are not entitled to TTD, even if they have an approved surgery in the claim. We will not be calling it voluntary abandonment, but the analysis remains the same.
Although the case holding is a major win for Ohio employers, the case is unlikely to be applied retroactively to previously awarded TTD benefits.
If you have any questions about the applicability of State ex rel. AutoZone, please contact us.
Rick Hernandez joined Perez Morris in 2017. He is a proactive, strategic and dedicated workers’ compensation defense attorney with more than 30 years’ experience. Rick has represented self-insured and state-funded private employers, state agencies, and public and private universities in proceedings before the Industrial Commission of Ohio and at all levels of court within the state of Ohio. You can reach him at rhernandez@perez-morris.com or (614) 540-2230. Read more
Beth Weeden joined Perez Morris in 2018. With more than 30 years’ experience, she counsels employers in all aspects of their workers’ compensation and risk management programs. She represents both self-insured and state-funded employers including national and regional retail distribution centers, retail stores, staffing services, restaurants, manufacturing facilities and home health care providers. You can reach Beth at eweeden@perez-morris.com or (614) 396-3822. Read more
Rebecca Rayner is a partner in the Perez Morris Columbus office, specializing in representing employers in Ohio workers’ compensation claims before the Ohio Industrial Commission and in state court, as well as handling general liability litigation and trucking matters. With extensive experience in insurance defense, Rebecca has a well-established background managing a range of issues including trucking, premises liability, and general liability cases. You can reach Rebecca at rrayner@perez-morris.com or (614) 396-3831. Read more
