Last year, we told you about a case that left employers' use of the Voluntary Abandonment defense unclear, and could have long-term negative repercussions. Luckily, it’s been clarified by a recent ruling. The Supreme Court of Ohio officially interpreted a section of the Revised Code in a way that sincerely benefits employers.

The employer, Autozone, was contesting claimant’s receipt of temporary total disability (TTD) compensation after an approved surgery that took place two months after the employer terminated the claimant for unrelated reasons.

The claimant incurred a work-related injury in June of 2020, and returned to work on light duty following conservative treatment. The claimant was terminated in September 2020 for reasons unrelated to the claim. In November 2020, the claimant underwent an approved surgery for the allowed condition, and subsequently filed for TTD. Autozone argued that the claimant wasn’t entitled to TTD because there were no lost wages to replace - due to the claimant not working at the time of the surgery. 

The Industrial Commission greenlit the initial request for disability compensation starting on the surgery date. Autozone then filed an appeal with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting the order be vacated and the claimant be found ineligible for TTD. The court agreed with the Industrial Commission and rejected the employer’s argument to deny TTD. The employer then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court and the outcome is much more palatable – not just for Autozone, but for all employers in the state.

The court stated that the language in R.C. 4123.56 is clear on the “direct result” requirement – meaning lost wages must be a direct result of the injury. They further opined that the appellate court failed to enact the second sentence of that same statute, which clarifies that a claimant is ineligible for TTD if wage loss is a result of circumstances unrelated to the claim.