State ex rel. Hammer v. Industrial Commission

99 Ohio St. 3d 334 (Ohio 2003) · Supreme Court of Ohio · August 6, 2003

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that a workers’ compensation claimant was disqualified from receiving temporary total disability compensation after being fired for violating a known written workplace rule prohibiting sexually inappropriate conduct. Because the termination was deemed voluntary under the Louisiana-Pacific standard and the claimant was not later removed from other employment by the industrial injury, the court affirmed denial of compensation.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Per Curiam; Moyer, C.J.; Resnick, J.; F.E. Sweeney, J.; Pfeifer, J.; Lundberg Stratton, J.; O’Connor, J.; O’Donnell, J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
August 6, 2003
Procedural posture
The claimant sought a writ of mandamus requiring the Industrial Commission to award temporary total disability compensation. The Franklin County Court of Appeals denied the writ, and the claimant appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio as of right.
Standard of review
Whether the Industrial Commission abused its discretion in denying temporary total disability compensation; mandamus relief was appropriate only if the commission's decision lacked evidentiary support or was contrary to law.
Precedential value
Published and precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Ohio
Parties
Ronald J. Hammer Sr. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

administrative lawjudicial review of agency actionworkers compensationemployment lawremedies

Practice areas

administrative lawworkers compensationemployment lawremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Industrial Commission abused its discretion by denying temporary total disability compensation after the claimant was fired for violating a known written work rule.
  2. Whether the claimant's firing constituted a voluntary departure under State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm., thereby barring temporary total disability compensation.

Holdings

  1. A firing is treated as a voluntary departure when it is generated by the claimant's violation of a written work rule or policy that clearly defines the prohibited conduct, identifies the conduct as dischargeable, and was known or should have been known to the employee.

Key quotations

Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 401, 403, 650 N.E.2d 469, deemed a voluntary departure a firing that was ‘generated by the claimant’s violation of a written work rule or policy that (1) clearly defined the prohibited "conduct, (2) had been previously identified by the employer as. a dischargeable offense, and (3) was known or should have been known to the employee.’ (¶ 7)

Factual background

Ronald J. Hammer was a security officer who acknowledged receiving an employee handbook prohibiting sexually inappropriate comments and gestures and warning that violations could result in discharge. After receiving a warning for violating that rule, Hammer suffered a work-related shoulder injury, returned to work, and was fired for a second incident of inappropriate comments. His workers' compensation claim was allowed, but after subsequent shoulder surgery the Industrial Commission denied temporary total disability compensation because the firing was treated as a voluntary departure.

Procedural history

After the Industrial Commission denied temporary total disability compensation on the ground that the claimant's firing was a voluntary departure under State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm., the claimant filed a mandamus action in the Franklin County Court of Appeals. That court denied the writ, and the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…