After more than a year of waiting, the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in State ex rel. AutoZone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm’n has finally restored employers’ ability to defend against claims where an employee stops working for reasons unrelated to their injuries.
The Ohio legislature added a new section to R.C. §4123.56 which went into effect on September 15, 2020. The newly added section (F) wiped out a long history of workers’ compensation case law regarding the “voluntary abandonment” doctrine. Previously, the doctrine of voluntary abandonment denied a claimant temporary total disability compensation (“TTD”) when the injured worker stopped working “voluntarily” for reasons unrelated to an injury. The voluntary abandonment doctrine included resignations and retirements as well as terminations based upon violations of written work rules.
The amended section (F) superseded any previous judicial decision that applied the doctrine of voluntary abandonment. As a replacement, the statute left employers and the courts to grapple with two rather confusing sentences. The first sentence of section (F) states that if an employee is unable to work as a direct result of an injury, they are entitled to benefits. Conversely, the second sentence states that if an employee is not working because of unrelated reasons, the employee is not eligible. The statute does not provide clear guidance regarding whether TTD should be paid in situations where the claimant is not working due to both a work and a non-work related cause.
State ex rel. AutoZone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm’n was the first major case to interpret the new statute. In AutoZone, an employee’s claim was allowed for a shoulder injury. His employer offered him a light duty position which he accepted. He then had an altercation with a co-worker and the employer terminated him for violating company policy. After his termination, his doctor determined that he needed surgery. The employee requested and was awarded TTD compensation by the Industrial Commission from the date of surgery, despite his pre-surgery termination. The Tenth District Court of Appeals held that because he was unable to work due to surgery for the allowed conditions he was entitled to benefits. It did not matter that he was terminated before the surgery occurred.
The Ohio Supreme Court took up AutoZone on appeal and reversed the Tenth District’s decision. In so doing, they provided long-awaited clarification regarding how the statute should be interpreted. The Supreme Court held that the two sentences read together still require a causal relationship between the employee’s injury and the inability to work. Accordingly, an intervening event or condition not related to the injury can break this required causal connection. Since the employee in AutoZone was terminated before his surgery for violating company policy, the Court held that his inability to work after surgery was not the direct result of his injury.
What does this mean for employers? The Ohio Supreme Court decision in AutoZone restores employers’ ability to defend against claims where an employee stops working for reasons unrelated to their allowed injuries, including terminations of employment. The Workers’ Compensation attorneys at Coolidge Wall are available to assist with any questions regarding how the AutoZone decision may impact your workers’ compensation claims.
