On November 26, 2024, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued its long-awaited decision in AutoZone Stores, Inc. v Indus. Comm., reversing the Tenth District’s interpretation of R.C. 4123.56(F) and indirectly restoring the employer-friendly doctrine of voluntary abandonment. See Slip Opinion 2024-Ohio-5519 here.

In 2020, the Ohio legislature enacted the divisive R.C. 4123.56(F), which superseded any previous precedent on the issue of “voluntary abandonment.” For years, injured workers in Ohio were generally ineligible for temporary total disability (“TTD”) if they voluntary removed themselves from the workforce or were subjected to termination for cause. R.C. 4123.56(F) replaced the doctrine of voluntary abandonment with broad language establishing that an injured worker can be eligible for TTD so long as they suffered a wage loss “as the direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease.” Specifically, the statute reads as follows:

If an employee is unable to work or suffers a wage loss as the direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease, the employee is entitled to receive compensation under this section, provided the employee is otherwise qualified.  If an employee is not working or has suffered a wage loss as the direct result of reasons unrelated to the allowed injury or occupational disease, the employee is not eligible to receive compensation under this section.  It is the intent of the general assembly to supersede any previous judicial decision that applied the doctrine of voluntary abandonment to a claim brought under this section.

In March 2023, the Tenth District Court of Appeals ruled that workers’ compensation claimants are entitled to temporary total disability benefits even if terminated for cause (see Dinsmore alert on same, here). The Tenth District concluded that the language of R.C. 4123.56(F) was “unambiguous” and required them to ignore the effects of a termination on TTD and consider “…only whether the claimant in this case was unable to work as the direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease to support the grant of TTD for the period specified.”

The Supreme Court of Ohio disagreed, finding that “Superseding the voluntary-abandonment decisions under the third sentence of R.C. 4123.56(F) does not eliminate the requirement of a causal relationship between the allowed injury and an actual loss of earnings.” The Court reasoned that based upon the longstanding and pervasive requirement of a “direct causal connection” between lost wages and allowed claim conditions, R.C. 4123.56(F) can supersede prior decisions creating a doctrine of voluntary abandonment and still require a causal link between the loss of wages and the “impairment arising from an injury.” This means Ohio employers can again argue that a termination for cause breaks the chain and renders an injured worker ineligible for TTD, irrespective of the allowed claim conditions.

The language of R.C. 4123.56(F) has muddied the waters of TTD since 2020, but AutoZone provides an interpretation very favorable to employers, reinstating their ability to argue that an injured water is not entitled to TTD after abandoning the workforce or being terminated for cause, even if their physician subsequently takes them off work for claim-related reasons.

Employers should contact their Dinsmore attorney in situations where an injured worker has requested TTD subsequent to separation from employment. This is true even if a decision has already been made on TTD, as the Industrial Commission may exercise “continuing jurisdiction” to vacate prior orders that do not comport with the Supreme Court’s new ruling in AutoZone.