Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the denial of a writ of mandamus seeking permanent-total-disability workers’ compensation benefits. The court held that there is no fixed hourly standard for determining whether part-time work constitutes sustained remunerative employment and that the Industrial Commission must decide the issue case by case. The commission did not abuse its discretion in relying on an expert opinion that the claimant could perform up to four hours of sedentary work per day with restrictions.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Industrial Commission abused its discretion by finding that Bonnlander was capable of sustained remunerative employment based on an expert opinion that he could perform part-time sedentary work for up to four hours per day with multiple breaks.
- Whether Ohio law imposes a four-hour-per-day minimum threshold for determining whether part-time work constitutes sustained remunerative employment in a permanent-total-disability case.
Holdings
- There is no statutory or administrative hourly standard requiring a claimant to be capable of working four or more hours per day before part-time work can constitute sustained remunerative employment. The Industrial Commission must determine the claimant's capability on a case-by-case basis.
- The Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion by relying on Dr. Sinha's report to find that Bonnlander was capable of up to four hours of sedentary work per day with restrictions; the report constituted some evidence supporting denial of permanent-total-disability compensation.
Key quotations
“Therefore, we hold that there is no hourly standard for determining one’s capability to perform sustained remunerative employment on a part-time basis. The commission decides whether a claimant is capable of sustained remunerative employment on a case-by-case basis.” (¶ 20)
“workers’ compensation cases are, to a large extent, very fact specific. As such, no one test or analysis can be said to apply to each and every factual possibility. Nor can only one factor be considered controlling. Rather, a flexible and analytically sound approach to these cases is preferable. Otherwise, the application of hard and fast rules can lead to unsound and unfair results.” (¶ 19)
Factual background
Bonnlander suffered a workplace motor-vehicle injury in 1992, and his workers' compensation claim was allowed for multiple medical conditions and depressive disorder. He later worked in construction and for the postal service, but stopped working in December 2008. When he applied for permanent-total-disability benefits in 2014, the commission's medical and psychological experts concluded that he could perform restricted sedentary work, including part-time work of up to four hours per day with multiple breaks. The commission denied benefits after considering those reports and Bonnlander's age, education, and work experience.
Procedural history
Bonnlander applied for permanent-total-disability benefits, but an Industrial Commission staff hearing officer denied the application after relying on medical and psychological reports concluding that he could perform restricted sedentary work for up to four hours per day. Bonnlander sought a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals, alleging that the commission's order was unsupported by evidence. The magistrate recommended denial, and the court of appeals adopted that recommendation in a two-to-one decision. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.