The Tenth District Court of Appeals has thrown a curveball to Ohio employers by limiting a defense to temporary total disability compensation following the termination of an employee.

In September 2022, a new law went into effect eliminating the doctrine of voluntary abandonment in Ohio workers’ compensation cases. That doctrine provided that an injured worker was not entitled to benefits when they voluntarily removed themselves from the workforce or were terminated for violation of written work rules.

The new law provided that an employee who is unable to work as a direct result of a work-related injury or disease is entitled to compensation; whereas when an employee is off work for reasons unrelated to a work-related injury or disease, the employee is not entitled to compensation. Although the voluntary abandonment doctrine was officially eliminated, under the new law, employers still could argue that the reason an employee was not working was due to their termination for cause, rather than their work injury, and that the employee therefore was not entitled to compensation.

Recent appeal of temporary total disability compensation case

In State ex rel. Autozone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., the Tenth District Court of Appeals ruled that an employee is entitled to temporary total disability compensation even after being terminated for cause. In June 2020, Autozone’s employee was injured at work and thereafter worked in a light duty capacity until his termination for cause in September 2020, after being involved in an argument with a coworker. In October 2020, the employee requested temporary total disability compensation and underwent an approved shoulder surgery in the claim in November 2020.

The Industrial Commission granted the employee’s request for compensation, beginning the date of his surgery, and Autozone appealed to the Court of Appeals. The employer argued that the claimant was not entitled to compensation because he was off work due to his termination for cause – a reason unrelated to his work injury, not due to his surgery. The court rejected this argument, finding that the claimant was entitled to compensation after his surgery. The court stated:

If a claimant is unable to work, R.C. 4123.56(F) sets forth two operative questions to be eligible for TTD compensation: (1) whether he or she is unable to work as a direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease; and (2) whether he or she is otherwise qualified to receive TTD compensation. R.C. 4123.56(F) does not impose an additional requirement on a claimant to prove he or she is unable to work solely due to an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease. Only when an otherwise qualified claimant is not working as a direct result of reasons unrelated to the allowed injury or occupational disease is the claimant ineligible to receive TTD compensation.

Takeaways

Going forward, it remains to be seen how successful employers will be in raising the defense that an employee is not entitled to compensation after a termination for cause. Based on Autozone, employers may not be successful arguing that compensation is inappropriate when an employee was working in a light duty capacity prior to termination for cause and/or when an employee undergoes surgery or their condition worsens. However, the defense that the reason an employee is off work is unrelated to the work injury may be a valid defense when an employee is terminated for cause while working full duty.