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

Citation: 2002-Ohio-2340

Docket Number: 20000873

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2002-05-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Cite as State ex rel. Hadbavny v. Indus. Comm., 95 Ohio St.3d 339, 2002-Ohio-2340.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. HADBAVNY, APPELLANT, V. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 
OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Hadbavny v. Indus. Comm., 95 Ohio St.3d 339, 2002-
Ohio-2340.] 
Workers’ compensation — Denial of temporary total disability compensation by 
Industrial Commission — Court of appeals’ return of cause to commission 
for further consideration, clarification, and an amended order for failure 
to comply with State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. requirements affirmed. 
(No. 2000-0873 — Submitted April 23, 2002 — Decided May 29, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-108. 
__________________ 
 
PER CURIAM. 
{¶1} 
Appellant-claimant, James J. Hadbavny, has an allowed workers’ 
compensation claim.  In 1998, he sought temporary total disability compensation 
(“TTC”).  A district hearing officer for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio 
granted that request.  Claimant’s employer, appellee House of LaRose Cleveland, 
Inc., appealed. 
{¶2} 
A staff hearing officer on October 23, 1998, issued the following 
order: 
{¶3} 
“[T]he Appeal filed 9-28-98 is denied. 
{¶4} 
“The Staff Hearing Officer denies the request for payment of 
temporary total compensation for the period of 7-15-98 through 9-15-98.  The 
basis of this finding is that the claimant voluntarily abandoned his former position 
of employment.  The claimant had returned to his former position of employment 
without restrictions on 3-31-98.  The claimant worked at full duty until 6-26-98 
when he was terminated for violation of a company work rule.  There is no 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
evidence that this termination was secondary to restrictions stemming from the 
allowed conditions.  The Staff Hearing Officer finds, therefore, that the conduct 
leading to the termination constitutes a voluntary abandonment of employment. 
{¶5} 
“All proof on file was reviewed and considered.” 
{¶6} 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals 
for Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying 
TTC.  The court of appeals held that the order did not satisfy State ex rel. Noll v. 
Indus. Comm. (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245, and issued a limited 
writ returning the cause to the commission for further consideration and amended 
order. 
{¶7} 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
{¶8} 
State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm. requires the commission to 
“specifically state what evidence has been relied upon, and briefly explain the 
reasoning for its decision.”  Id. at syllabus.  Because that did not occur here, we 
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
{¶9} 
The commission’s bare reference to “[a]ll proof on file” does not 
comport with the evidentiary specificity that Noll demands.  Its “explanation” 
defies Noll for two other reasons.  First, the denial of TTC conflicts with its 
earlier declaration that the employer’s appeal was denied.  Second, it does not 
explain how claimant’s employment discharge satisfied the criteria established in 
State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 401, 
650 N.E.2d 469, which set forth circumstances under which employment 
discharge could be deemed a TTC-preclusive abandonment of the former position 
of employment.  Accordingly, a return to the commission for further 
consideration, clarification, and an amended order is appropriate. 
{¶10} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
January Term, 2002 
3 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Paul M. Friedman, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and William J. McDonald, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
 
Duvin, Cahn & Hutton and Christine C. Covey, for appellee House of 
LaRose Cleveland, Inc. 
__________________