In the case of State ex rel. AutoZone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 2023-Ohio-633, an appellate court held that a former employee was not able to work as a “direct” result of the former employee’s workplace injuries and surgery, and thus qualified for Temporary Total Disability (“TTD”) compensation under R.C. 4123.56(F), despite the employee having been terminated before the surgery.
In this case, the employer argued that (1) the direct reason the former employee could not work was the employee’s termination rather than the employee’s injury; (2) the former employee was not “otherwise qualified” as the employee was not employed at the time of the surgery due to the employee’s termination; (3) the phrase “if an employee is not working” in the second sentence of R.C. 4123.56(F) precluded the former employee from receiving TTD compensation; (4) the former employee had no lost wages because the employee was not working; and (5) the reasons why the former employee was not working in the gap between the employee’s termination and surgery was relevant. In response, the commission and former employee argued that (1) the termination does not matter as the reason the former employee could not work at all is because of the employee’s injury; (2) the “otherwise qualified” relates to R.C. 4123.56(A), which does not mention being employed; (3) the phrase “if an employee is not working” does not automatically disqualify a claimant because the inability to work could be caused by the workplace injury; (4) R.C. 4123.56(F) allows TTD compensation if the claimant is not working due to the allowed conditions in the claim; and (5) the reasons why the former employee was not working between termination and the surgery was not relevant as that R.C. 4123.56(A) expressly superseded the law where these reasons were relevant. The appellate court agreed with the commission and former employee.
In support of its decision in favor of the commission and former employee, the appellate court explained that:
R.C. 4123.56(F) requires a claimant’s inability to work to stem immediately from an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease. We decline to extrapolate an additional requirement in R.C. 4123.56(F) that a claimant prove he or she is unable to work only due to an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease. 2023-Ohio-633 at ¶ 22.
The appellate court next explained that, when read as a whole, R.C. 4123.56’s “otherwise qualified” provision refers to the disqualifications in R.C. 4123.56(A), when an employee (1) returns to work, (2) a statement from the treating physician states the employe is capable of returning to work, (3) an employer makes work available within the physical capabilities of the employee, or (4) the employee has reached the maximum medical improvement, none of which applied to this case or relates to being employed. The appellate court went on to explain that the statute does not disqualify anyone without regard for whether the reason the claimant is not working is attributable to the workplace injury as claimants who are working are not eligible to receive TTD compensation. The appellate court further explained that, if a claimant is “otherwise qualified” and there is a direct causal link between the claimant’s injuries and the inability to work, the claimant is eligible for TTD compensation. The appellate court finally explained that ‘R.C. 4123.56(F) only requires us to review only whether the claimant in this case was unable to work as the direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease to support the grant of TTD for the period specified.” Id. at ¶ 34.
NOTE: The employee relied heavily on law that was good prior to the enactment of the current R.C. 4123.56. Other cases before R.C. 4123.56 was enacted came out drastically different.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.