Case Title: State ex rel. Carnahan v. Indus. Comm.

Citation: 1999-Ohio-82

Docket Number: 19970177

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-07-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. CARNAHAN, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, 
APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Carnahan v. Indus. Comm. (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 67.] 
Workers’ compensation — Application for wage-loss compensation denied when 
applicant fails to prove a causal relationship between injury and decreased 
earnings. 
(No. 97-177 — Submitted April 13, 1999 — Decided July 7, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APD11-1422. 
 
Appellant-claimant, Robert W. Carnahan, worked two jobs in 1992.  He 
worked full-time as a police officer, and he was an Air Force reservist, devoting 
two full weeks per year as well as assorted weekends to this position. 
 
On January 31, 1992, claimant sustained multiple bruises in a fall during his 
police shift. He had no treatment after his initial office visit and missed no time 
from work. 
 
On February 28, 1994, claimant retired from the police department after over 
twenty years of service.  He chose a normal retirement rather than a disability 
retirement. 
 
Claimant did not seek other work in the months that followed. He did 
increase his hours of availability with the Air Force Reserve.  He signed on as an 
on-call flight engineer and received periodic assignments to track hurricanes.  Air 
Force regulations prohibited claimant from devoting more than one hundred eighty 
days per year to this job. 
 
In March 1995, claimant submitted to the federal government an application 
for full-time employment.  No job, however, materialized. 
 
One month later, claimant moved appellee, Industrial Commission of Ohio, 
for wage-loss compensation.  In support, he submitted wage statements from his 
 
2
reservist position and a report from Dr. Leslie A. Friedman.  Dr. Friedman 
concluded: 
 
“I am of the opinion that Mr. Carnahan cannot function safely as a police 
officer.  I note that as a police officer he has to wear a gun belt which includes the 
firearm and radio, as well as a bullet proof vest, [and] the additional weight 
certainly puts additional stress and strain on the knee and low back region.  
Furthermore, I do not believe he is capable of the vigorous physical activities 
which are sometimes required by a police officer.  I do not believe he could 
perform adequately in an emergency situation because of the residual problems 
from the 1/31/92 injury.  I believe he could put himself, fellow officers, and other 
individuals at risk.  Therefore, I do not believe that he is capable of functioning as 
a police officer.” 
 
A district hearing officer denied the application because: 
 
“[T]here is a lack of good faith job search over this period and the claimant’s 
physical limitations of no vigorous exercise [are] vague.  [The] DHO relies on Dr. 
Friedman’s 2/23/95 report which merely indicates claimant can not perform his 
job as a police officer as he can not perform vigorous physical activities.  The 
actual physical limitations due to this 1/31/92 industrial injury is [sic] not 
specified. 
 
“[The] DHO also notes that claimant took a service retirement on 2/26/94 
from the police department. 
 
“[The] DHO finds that claimant’s wages [sic] loss request is not supported 
by proof of a good faith job search.  Although claimant continued to perform work 
for the Federal [Air Force] Reserve on a part-time basis (which he performed even 
prior to this 1/31/92 industrial injury), claimant made no attempt to find a full-time 
job or even another part-time job until 3/1/95 when claimant completed one federal 
employment application looking for work as a flight engineer.  The DHO findings 
 
3
[sic] that no contact with OBES nor any other job contacts have been made since 
3/1/94 (date of request for wage loss compensation).” 
 
A staff hearing officer affirmed, adding: 
 
“The order of the District Hearing Officer, dated 6/12/95 is affirmed, with 
additional reasoning.  The claimant was injured on 1/31/92, with no lost time from 
work.  The claimant retired under [r]egular retirement in February of 1994.  The 
retirement is found to be completely voluntary in nature.  The claimant could have 
likely continued working with the police force in a more sedentary position, if he 
choose [sic] to do so.  Under these circumstances, the claimant, if he has a wage 
loss, it is found to be voluntary in nature.  In all other respects the prior decision is 
affirmed.” 
 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, contesting his wage-loss denial.  The court of appeals found that 
claimant did not perform a good-faith job search and denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Dean G. Reinhard Co., L.P.A., and Charles Zamora, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Cheryl J. Nester, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Claimant seeks two-thirds of the $440 weekly difference 
between his police and reservist wages.  To prevail, he must prove a causal 
relationship between his injury and his decreased earnings.  State ex rel. Watts v. 
Schottenstein Stores Corp. (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 118, 623 N.E.2d 1202.  The 
commission found no causal relationship, and we uphold that decision. 
 
The commission rejected claimant’s assertion that his injury was responsible 
for his decreased wages.  “Some evidence” supports that decision.  Claimant’s 
 
4
injuries consisted of bruises that generated a single office visit.  He lost no time 
from work and worked unimpeded as a police officer for the next two years.  He 
also specifically declined a disability retirement.  While Dr. Friedman indeed 
reported that claimant’s injury prevented a resumption of police duties, the 
commission was not required to accept that opinion.  See State ex rel. Burley v. 
Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936.  Equally 
important, nothing in Dr. Friedman’s report confined claimant to part-time work as 
a reservist. 
 
Claimant declared himself capable of full-time employment on his federal 
employment application.  Given this ability, claimant was required to look for 
other employment beyond the federal realm.  Claimant admittedly declined to 
search for county, city, or state employment and refused to look for work in the 
private sector.  Claimant was clearly capable of a wide range of more lucrative 
work — he simply did not want it. 
 
A claimant cannot successfully assert that an injury placed him/her at a 
competitive disadvantage in the job market without fully immersing 
himself/herself into the job market.  State ex rel. Ooten v. Siegel Interior 
Specialists Co. (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 255, 703 N.E.2d 306.  This is to ensure that 
“claimant’s job choice was motivated by the injury-induced unavailability of other 
work and was not a lifestyle choice.”  Id. at 257, 703 N.E.2d at 307.  Here, the 
commission did not abuse its discretion in concluding that claimant’s departure 
from the police force and his subsequent part-time employment were motivated by 
lifestyle choice, not industrial injury. 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.