THE STATE, EX REL. RAMIREZ,
APPELLEE
vs.
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO
ET AL., APPELLANTS
No. 81-908
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
433 N.E.2d 586, 69 Ohio St. 2d 630, 23 Ohio Op. 3d 518
March 9, 1982
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for
Franklin County.
HEADNOTE
Workers' compensation -- Temporary disability --
Defined.
SYLLABUS
Under R.C. 4123.56, temporary total disability is defined as a
disability which prevents a worker from returning to his former
position of employment.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 26, 1979, the Industrial Commission, through its
district hearing officer, found that claimant, Yamal Ramirez, was
entitled to receive 75 percent temporary partial disability
compensation. The Columbus Regional Board of Review affirmed the
order of the district hearing officer. Administrative appeal to the
Industrial Commission was refused.
Ramirez ("relator" hereinafter) then
filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals
for Franklin County, alleging that the Industrial Commission abused
its discretion in not paying him temporary total disability
compensation while he was unable to return to his normal job
duties, and seeking a writ ordering the Industrial Commission to
grant him temporary total disability compensation from December 3,
1979, until he is no longer eligible.
On September 14, 1976, while relator
was employed as a construction laborer for H.K. Ferguson Company he
fell and injured himself when a scaffolding fell upon him. At
various times from the date of the injury to December 2, 1979, he
received temporary total disability payments.
Upon the initiative of the Industrial
Commission, Dr. John Q. Brown examined relator on June 7, 1979, and
filed a written report that relator had a temporary partial
disability of 75 percent, that he walked with a cane and wore a
lumbo sacral corset, and suffered very marked limitation of right
lateral flexion and anterior flexion. He did not state whether
relator was able to return to his former position of employment.
Dr. D.D. Kackley, a specialist who examined relator on October 3,
1980, reported that relator could not perform his normal job, and
that such total disability was temporary. Relator's affidavit on
file with the Industrial Commission stated that he is a
construction laborer and is unable to perform his duties with the
physical restrictions imposed upon him by his physical
disabilities.1
On these facts the Court of Appeals
granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the Industrial Commission to
take evidence and to consider whether relator was capable of
returning, either partially or completely, to his former employment
on December 3, 1979, and if he was not able to return to his former
position of employment at that time, the Industrial Commission is
ordered to pay him temporary total disability compensation from
December 3, 1979, until he is no longer eligible."
The cause is now before this court
upon an appeal as a matter of right.
COUNSEL
Clayman & Jaffy Co., L.P.A., Mr. Stewart R.
Jaffy and Mr. John F. Livorno, for
appellee.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general,
Mr. Michael J. Hickey and Ms. Nancy J.
Miller, for appellants.
JUDGES
W. BROWN, SWEENEY and PATTON, JJ., concur. CELEBREZZE, C.J., LOCHER
and KRUPANSKY, JJ., dissent. PATTON, J., of the Eighth Appellate
District, sitting for HOLMES, J.
AUTHOR: BROWN
OPINION
CLIFFORD F. BROWN, J. This case
raises the following question. Is temporary total disability as
used in R.C. 4123.56 a disability which prevents a worker from
returning to his former position of employment? The answer is
affirmative, for the following reasons.
The pertinent portions of R.C.
4123.56, temporary disability compensation, provide as follows:
"In the case of temporary disability,
an employee shall receive sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of his
average weekly wage so long as such disability is total, * * *.
{*632} "Payments shall
continue pending the determination of the matter, however payment
shall not be made for such period when any employee has returned to
work or when an employee's treating physician has made a written
statement that the employee is capable of returning to his former
position of employment.
"After two hundred weeks of temporary
total disability benefits the claimant shall be scheduled for an
examination by the Industrial Commission medical department for an
evaluation to determine whether or not the temporary disability has
become permanent * * *."
The Court of Appeals in this case
correctly and unanimously determined that, "An employee is entitled
to be paid temporary total disability when injured and unable to
work until one of the following three things occur: (1) he has
returned to work, (2) his treating physician has made a written
statement that he is capable of returning to his former position of
employment, or (3) the temporary disability has become
permanent."
R.C. 4123.56, as excerpted above,
specifically refers to the capability of an employee "to return to
his former position of employment." "Position" is defined by
Webster's Third New International Dictionary as "the group of tasks
and responsibilities making up the duties of an employee." The
Industrial Commission, is determining whether relator was entitled
to temporary total disability, did not consider whether he was
capable of returning to his former position of employment as a
construction laborer.
The question whether temporary total
disability means a disability which prevents a worker from
returning to his former position of employment has been decided by
this court in State, ex rel. Consolidation Coal
Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St.
2d 127, where, in a per curiam opinion, at pages
127-129, inter alia, quot0ing pertinent parts of
the medical report of claimant Hall's examining physician, we
held:
"Claimant * * * applied for * * *
benefits claiming total disability due to coal miner's
pneumoconiosis. * * * However, the Industrial Commission reversed
and found that the claimant had become totally disabled. * * * The
Court of Appeals, in {*633} upholding the commission and
denying the writ, quoted from the medical report * * * as follows:
'* * * 'V. * * * This patient is totally disabled from engaging in
any further coal mine employment.' The Court of Appeals found this
report to be sufficient evidence to support the commission's
finding. * * * A review of the record reveals that the finding of
the commission is supported by evidence of probative value. The
judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed."
The Court of Appeals for Franklin
County in the same case, State, ex rel. Consolidation Coal
Co., v. Indus. Comm. (January 31, 1978),
No. 77 AP-579, unreported, stated that the Industrial Commission
was correct in finding claimant Hall temporarily totally disabled,
in this language:
"In considering temporary total
disability we find it is only necessary to consider the job for
which the claimant was employed."
In the Consolidation Coal
Co. case, the Industrial Commission took an opposite
posture than in the present Ramirez case, and
stated correctly in its brief in this court the following
proposition of law:
"The Court of Appeals correctly stated
and applied a different standard for total disability when a
workers' compensation claim involves temporary total disability,
rather than a claim for permanent total disability." 1184 Ohio
Supreme Court Briefs and Records, 3d Series, Case No. 78-375. That
different standard urged by the Commission was the "former position
of employment" test.
As reflected in the record and briefs
in Consolidation Coal and in this case, we are
presented with the same legal question in both cases, namely,
whether a claimant is temporarily totally disabled when he cannot
return to his former position of employment.
Since the Consolidation
Coal case in 1979, this court has considered only one
other case on the question of temporary total disability. In
State, ex rel. Ianiro, v. Indus.
Comm. (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 152, this court properly
affirmed the Court of Appeals for Franklin County's denial of a
writ of mandamus to the claimant, who challenged a commission order
denying his claim for temporary total disability. In that case, the
record {*634} clearly revealed that claimant could return
to his former position of employment. Ianiro,
supra, at page 153.
The holding against claimant in
Ianiro is consistent both with our decision in
favor of claimant in Consolidation Coal Co. and
our holding in favor of relator in the present
Ramirez case.
This court has repeatedly stated, as
in State, ex rel. Bunch, v. Indus.
Comm. (1980), 62 Ohio St. 2d 423, at page 427, that the
purpose of temporary total disability benefits under R.C. 4123.56
is to compensate for loss of earnings, as contrasted with the
purpose of permanent total disability under R.C. 4123.58 to
compensate for impairment of earning capacity. Therefore, those
cases which involve the question of permanent total disability,
e.g., State, ex rel. Nemeth, v. Indus.
Comm. (1953), 96 Ohio App. 167, 170, are irrelevant.
This court agrees with the Court of
Appeals in this case that the Industrial Commission abused its
discretion because it did not consider whether relator was able to
return to his former position of employment either partially or
completely. According to relator's affidavit, he was not able to
work in that capacity. However, that issue was not considered
either by the examining specialist or by the Industrial
Commission.
We affirm the Court of Appeals
judgment granting a writ of mandamus and ordering the Industrial
Commission to take evidence and to consider whether relator was
capable of returning, either partially or completely, to his former
position of employment on December 3, 1979. If relator was not able
to return to his former position of employment at that time, the
Industrial Commission is ordered to pay him temporary total
disability compensation from December 3, 1979, until he is no
longer eligible for such payment by virtue of the happening of one
of the events described in this decision.
DISPOSITION
Judgment
affirmed.
DISSENT
LOCHER, J., dissenting. The majority
reaches beyond the plain language of the Revised Code and indulges
in judicial legislation. For this reason, I dissent.
Initially, I must set forth the facts
of this case which do not appear in the statement of the case. At
the time of his injury, appellee was 21 years old and a laborer in
the construction industry. He received treatment from Dr. Arnold O.
Allenius, D.O. During 1977, 1978 and 1979, Dr. Allenius reported to
the bureau that appellee's condition was either permanent partial
disability or temporary total disability. Dr. Allenius typically
projected the date on which he expected appellee to be able to
resume work to be approximately three months after the date of the
most recent examination.
Appellee was referred to an orthopedic
specialist, Dr. John Q. Brown, M.D., in May of 1979. Dr. Brown
examined appellee on June 7, 1979, and concluded that he had
approximately 75 percent temporary partial disability.
A district hearing officer of the
Industrial Commission ("commission") ruled, on October 26, 1979,
that appellee should receive 75 percent temporary partial
disability compensation from December 3, 1979, through February 28,
1980. This determination was "[b]ased on medical reports of Drs.
Allenius and Brown." Any decision as to compensation after February
28, 1980, was to await the report of a medical specialist. Dr. D.
D. Kackley, M.D., who is also an orthopedic specialist, examined
appellee on October 3, 1980, and concluded that his condition was
40 percent temporary partial disability.
A.
Mandamus is an extraordinary writ. Its
use is subject to stringent criteria. See State, ex rel.
Westchester, v. Bacon (1980), 61 Ohio St.
2d 42, paragraph one of the syllabus. In workers' compensation
cases, a court may issue a writ of mandamus if, based on the
evidence, the Industrial Commission has abused its discretion. See,
e.g., State, ex rel. Teece, v. Indus.
Comm. (1981), 68 Ohio St. 2d 165, 167; State, ex
rel. Ianiro, v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 60
Ohio St. 2d 152, 153.
The majority urges that State,
ex rel. Consolidation
Coal {*636} Co., v.
Indus. Comm. (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 127, supports
appellee's position. I disagree.
In Consolidation
Coal, an employer sought a writ of mandamus in the Court
of Appeals after the Industrial Commission found that an employee,
who had coal miner's pneumoconiosis, was totally disabled. The
Court of Appeals for Franklin County upheld the commission's
finding and denied the writ. We unanimously affirmed the judgment
of the Court of Appeals and noted: "* * * A review of the record
reveals that the finding of the commission is supported by evidence
of probative value." Consolidation Coal, supra, at
129. The doctor's report in that case included: (1) an opinion that
the diagnosed condition was related to the patient's employment;
(2) the statement that "'[t]his patient should be restricted from
any activity that requires effort, due to his history of shortness
of breath'"; and (3) the conclusion that the employee was totally
disabled. Id., at 128. The record in that case
also indicates that the employee was 62 years old and had worked in
strip mines for approximately 40 years. 1184 Ohio Supreme Court
Briefs and Records, 3rd Series, Case No. 78-375.
In this case, the Court of Appeals
issued a writ of mandamus, reasoning that its
opinion in State, ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co.,
v. Indus. Comm. (January 31, 1978), No. 77AP-579,
unreported, controlled. In that opinion, the Court of Appeals
stated: "* * * In considering temporary total disability we find it
is only necessary to consider the job for which claimant was
employed."
Yet, we did not adopt the "former
position of employment" standard of the Court of Appeals in our
decision in State, ex rel. Consolidation Coal Co.,
v. Indus. Comm., supra.2 {*637}
Rather, we applied the "abuse of discretion" standard discussed
above and reviewed the record to determine whether "the finding of
the commission * * * [was] supported by evidence of probative
value." 58 Ohio St. 2d, at 129.
This court reviews the judgments of
the Court of Appeals, not its rationale. See Section 2(B)(2)(d) and
(e) of Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. We did not adopt the
"former position of employment" standard in our decision in
Consolidation Coal and should decline to do so
now. I would reaffirm the well-settled "abuse of discretion"
standard. Teece, at 167, and
Ianiro, at 153, supra; State, ex rel.
General Motors Corp., v. Indus. Comm.
(1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 278, 282-283.
At the time of his injury, appellee
was 21 years old. His examining physician, Dr. Allenius,
periodically reported that appellee incurred permanent partial
disability. At other times, Dr. Allenius concluded that appellee's
disability was temporary total in nature. In addition, Dr. Brown,
an orthopedic specialist, concluded that appellee suffered a 75
percent temporary partial disability. Here, as in Ianiro,
supra, "* * * we find sufficient factual medical evidence
to support the commission's decision." 60 Ohio St. 2d, at 153.
Accordingly, we should hold that the record supports the finding of
the Industrial Commission that appellee receive 75 percent
temporary partial compensation.
B.
The majority also concludes that R.C.
4123.56 requires that we apply the "former position of employment"
standard in this case. I disagree.
Am. Sub. S.B. No. 545 added the
following provision to R.C. 4123.56: "In the case of an
employer who has elected to pay compensation
direct, payments shall be for a duration based upon the
medical reports of the attending physician. If the employer
disputes the attending physician's report, payments may be
terminated only upon application and hearing by a district hearing
officer. Payments shall continue pending the determination of the
matter, however payment shall not be made for such period when any
employee has returned to work {*638} or when an employee's
treating physician has made a written statement that the employee
is capable of returning to his former position of
employment." (Emphasis added.) (136 Ohio Laws 1075, 1159.)
On its face, this amendment applies only to those
situations in which the employer is self-insured.
Furthermore, the Ohio Legislative
Service Commission reached the same conclusion. Under the heading
of "Self-Insuring Employers," the Legislative Service Commission
observed: "The act requires that in the case of a temporary
disability award against a self-insuring employer,
payments must be made for a duration based upon the reports of the
attending physician. If the employer disputes the reports, payments
may be terminated only upon application to and hearing by a
district hearing officer, but payments will continue pending the
termination of the matter. The act does not require payments to be
made where the employee has returned to work or when his physician
treating him makes a written statement that he can return to his
former position." (Emphasis added.) Summary of
1976 Enactments, August-November, 111th General Assembly, at page
32. This commentary strengthens our conclusion that the General
Assembly intended that one's ability to return to his or her former
position of employment should be a concern only if the employer is
self-insured.
This distinction between self-insured
employers and those who participate in the state fund appeals to
common sense as well. Self-insured employers are in a position to
take serious advantage of their employees. By amending R.C.
4123.56, the General Assembly obviously decided to build in
protection for employees of self-insured employers by adding the
"former position of employment" standard. The commission, however,
provides this protection for employees of firms participating in
the state fund. Therefore, the General Assembly deemed the "former
position of employment" standard to be unnecessary in cases before
the commission.
I see no reason why a 21-year-old man
should not be expected to take some initiative toward his own
rehabilitation when, in light of the evidence, the commission had a
reasonable basis on which to find that he is less than totally
disabled. The reason that the disability, and therefore the
compensation, {*639} is temporary is so
that those who can work will get back to work. In this case,
appellee did not so much as respond to the appointment letters
which the Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation sent to him.
The majority diverges from the issues
pertinent to this case, however, to discuss the difference in the
goals of temporary as opposed to permanent total disability.
Instead, we should limit our inquiry to the issue of whether, based
on the record, the commission abused its discretion. The majority
opinion sidesteps this analysis, ignores the clear intent of the
General Assembly, creates new law and establishes a criterion which
discourages industry on the part of those who are injured.
Furthermore, a mere self-serving affidavit can spark a new and
potentially expensive and time-consuming factual inquiry by the
commission regarding the state of the job market for a particular
position. I refuse to counsel this approach when, as here, it has
no basis in the Revised Code and the commission has made a
creditable conclusion based on the record.
Accordingly, I would hold that the
Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion, reverse the
decision of the Court of Appeals and deny appellee's request for a
writ of mandamus.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., and KRUPANSKY, J., concur in the foregoing
dissenting opinion.
STATEMENT OF CASE FOOTNOTES
1 The affidavit of relator reads as
follows:
"I, Yamal Ramirez, being first duly
cautioned and sworn, state that I have attempted to seek work, but
because of my disability cannot find work.
"I am not able to perform the work
which I had previously been employed, construction laborer. The
construction laborer trade involves at the very minimum lifting and
handling of tools, supplies, and equipment. There is no work
available in the construction industry for a laborer who is
disabled to the degree that I am disabled.
"Further affiant sayeth not.
"[signed] Yamal Ramirez."
DISSENT FOOTNOTES
2 The majority maintains that the
commission asserted before this court, in Consolidation
Coal, supra (58 Ohio St. 2d 127), that its policy and past
practice was to use the "former position of employment" standard.
We note, however, that any reference to this point in the brief of
the commission was merely argumentative and should not determine
the outcome of this case. We permit inconsistencies in pleadings.
Civ. R. 8(E)(2). I see no reason why a tangential point in a brief
before this court should set a party's position in concrete for all
time. Rather, the record in that case does not clearly establish
any Industrial Commission policy. Accordingly, "due deference to an
administrative interpretation" (Jones Metal Products
Co. v. Walker [1972], 29 Ohio St. 2d 173,
181) is not controlling. Furthermore our per
curiam opinion in Consolidation Coal
makes no reference to Industrial Commission practice. This aspect
of that case, therefore, was not dispositive.