Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that an employee’s termination did not constitute a voluntary abandonment of employment barring temporary total disability compensation where the employee did not receive notice that absence would result in immediate termination until after the relevant absence. The court affirmed the denial of the employer’s request for a writ of mandamus.
Holdings
- An employee's voluntary abandonment of an employment position may preclude temporary total disability compensation, and a firing may be treated as a voluntary departure when the claimant engaged in misconduct that precipitated the termination.
- Wood did not voluntarily abandon his former position by missing work on May 13 because he did not know, and could not be deemed to have tacitly accepted, that termination would be the consequence of his absence.
Questions Presented
- Whether Wood's termination for missing work constituted a voluntary abandonment of his former position of employment that barred temporary total disability compensation.
- Whether the Industrial Commission abused its discretion in finding that Wood could not have voluntarily abandoned his employment when he did not receive the employer's warning of immediate termination until after the missed workday.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (4)
- State ex rel. Watts v. Schottenstein Stores Corp. (1993), 68 Ohio St. 3d 118, 623 N.E.2d 1202(followed)
- State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Industrial Commission (1995), 72 Ohio St. 3d 401, 650 N.E.2d 469(applied)
- State ex rel. Ashcraft v. Industrial Commission (1987), 34 Ohio St. 3d 42, 44, 517 N.E.2d 533(followed)
- State ex rel. Liposchak v. Industrial Commission (1995), 73 Ohio St. 3d 194, 196, 652 N.E.2d 753(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…