On November 26, 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court issued an extremely favorable decision for employers on the potential defenses to the payment of TTD compensation. This case is important because it is the first time the Ohio Supreme Court has interpreted R.C. 4123.56(F), as it relates to claimant’s potential eligibility for and employer's potential defenses against requests for TTD compensation.
In State ex rel. AutoZone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 2024 Ohio 5519, the Supreme Court denied claimant’s request for TTD compensation because he was terminated from his employment two months prior to the date of his alleged temporary total disability.
As is customary in workers’ compensation cases, the facts in AutoZone were very important to the Supreme Court’s decision to deny claimant’s request for TTD compensation.
In AutoZone, the claimant was terminated from his employment on September 16, 2020, for getting into an altercation with a co-worker. Claimant did not return to work with any different employer following his termination on September 16, 2020. On November 16, 2020, claimant underwent an approved shoulder surgery as a direct result of his allowed injury.
Based on the above fact pattern, the Industrial Commission granted claimant’s request for TTD compensation. Specifically, the Commission relied on the fact that claimant was under light-duty restrictions from work at the time of his termination. The Commission then noted the surgery was approved under the claim and therefore claimant’s wage loss (as of November 20, 2020) was the direct result of his allowed injury. The commission found claimant remained eligible for TTD compensation as of November 20, 2020 despite his prior termination from employment on September 16, 2020.
The employer appealed the administrative decision to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which upheld the Commission’s order which granted claimant’s request for TTD compensation based upon the same reasoning as relied upon by the Commission.
Thereafter, the employer filed further appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth District Court of Appeals and found claimant was not eligible for TTD compensation. The court held that since claimant was terminated prior to the date of his TTD compensation request, claimant’s wage loss was the direct result of reasons unrelated to his allowed injury (termination from employment on September 16, 2020) and therefore he was not eligible for TTD compensation as of November 16, 2020.
The Supreme Court’s decision in AutoZone provides employers with some very welcome clarity with respect to the application of R.C. 4123.56(F) and what potential defenses employers may raise to defeat requests for TTD compensation.
The key takeaway from the Court’s decision is that employers should inquire whether a claimant is working with their company, or in any capacity with a different employer, before approving a claimant’s request for TTD compensation. If a claimant is not working at the time of their TTD request, and the reason for them not working is unrelated to their injury, then employers should use the claimant’s lack of employment as a potential defense against the claimant’s request for TTD compensation.
Should you have any questions with respect to this case or be interested in learning more about other available defenses to workers' compensation claims in general, please do not hesitate to contact one of the Roetzel attorneys below.