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

Citation: 2001-Ohio-32

Docket Number: 19990947

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-04-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Backus v. Indus. Comm., 91 Ohio St.3d 251, 2001-Ohio-32.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. BACKUS, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 
OHIO, APPELLEE, ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Backus v. Indus. Comm. (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 251.] 
Workers’ compensation — Permanent partial disability compensation – 
Claimant’s election for impaired earning capacity denied by Industrial 
Commission – Court of appeals’ denial of writ of mandamus after 
finding that any impaired earning capacity was not attributable to 
claimant’s allowed condition affirmed. 
(No. 99-947 — Submitted March 14, 2001 — Decided April 11, 2001.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 98AP-532. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Appellant-claimant Rodney T. Backus has an allowed 
workers’ compensation claim for asthmatic bronchitis.  A request for permanent 
total disability compensation was denied by appellee Industrial Commission of 
Ohio based on two doctors’ reports that found that claimant had no functional 
limitations due to the allowed conditions and was physically capable of any 
employment performed in a fume- and dust-free environment. 
 
Claimant later applied for permanent partial disability compensation 
(“PPD”) under former R.C. 4123.57.  The commission found a twenty percent 
PPD, which claimant elected to receive as an award for impaired earning capacity 
(“IEC”) pursuant to former R.C. 4123.57(A).  His election was denied by the 
commission in a lengthy order: 
 
“Claimant has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his 
impaired earning capacity is causally related to the 2/4/85 industrial injury.  The 
medical report[s] of Dr. Hutchison (6/21/93) and Subbiah (1/14/93) both indicate 
that the claimant has no functional limitations due to the bronchitis and can do 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
any work as long as the environment is free from dust and fume[s].  The 
Commission order of 11/9/93, denying permanent total disability benefits, 
concludes that the claimant has no physical restrictions and can do any level of 
physical labor as long as there is no exposure to dust and fumes. 
 
“Evidence at hearing indicates that the claimant took a disability 
retirement with the employer on 7/1/97, after 34 years of employment.  The facts 
also indicate that claimant began receiving Social Security retirement benefits 
sometime in 1995.  * * * The Court in State ex rel. CPC Group, General Motors 
Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 209 [211, 559 N.E.2d 1330, 1333], 
stated that ‘R.C. 4123.57(A) requires a comparison of a claimant’s pre- and post-
injury earning capacity.  Consideration of post-injury earning capacity assumes, at 
a minimum, a desire to earn during the period in which an impairment has been 
alleged.’  In this case, the claimant has not presented any evidence that he had a 
desire to earn during the period he is alleging an impairment.  Claimant’s 
testimony at hearing was unequivocal.  He testified that from the date of his 
disability retirement (7/1/87), to the present (9/23/97), he has not made any 
attempt to look for work.  Claimant further testified that he didn’t think anyone 
would hire him because of his age and physical condition.  District Hearing 
Officer finds that claimant’s testimony is in direct conflict with the conclusions 
set forth in the Commission’s order of 11/9/93.  The Commission found [that] the 
claimant, based on his ability to do any level of physical labor as long as there is 
no exposure to dust and fumes, as well as his educational background, would be 
able to do such unskilled sedentary work as a security guard, ticket taker, product 
inspector, dispatcher and cashier jobs. 
 
“Based on the claimant’s testimony District Hearing Officer concludes 
that the claimant has never made any attempt in the 10 years since his retirement 
to secure any part-time or full-time employment.  Therefore, District Hearing 
January Term, 2001 
3 
Officer concludes, that claimant’s impaired earning capacity is related to his 
desire not to work, as opposed to the 2/4/85 industrial injury.”  (Emphasis sic.) 
 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in 
denying IEC.  The court of appeals denied the writ after finding that any IEC was 
not attributable to claimant’s allowed condition.  This cause is now before this 
court upon an appeal as of right. 
 
Former R.C. 4123.57 permitted a successful applicant for permanent 
partial disability compensation to select the method of payment—as a lump-sum 
PPD award under former R.C. 4123.57(B) or as weekly IEC compensation under 
former R.C. 4123.57(A).  138 Ohio Laws, Part I, 1733.  Entitlement under the 
latter is not, however, automatic.  A claimant must prove both actual IEC and a 
causal relationship to his or her allowed conditions.  State ex rel. Johnson v. 
Indus. Comm. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 384, 533 N.E.2d 775. 
 
“Impaired earning capacity” “connotes not what claimant did earn but 
what he or she could have earned.”  (Emphasis sic.)  State ex rel. Eaton Corp. v. 
Indus. Comm. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 180, 183-184, 610 N.E.2d 992, 995.  It is not 
established by the mere showing of diminished or absent wages.  State ex rel. 
Gool v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 178, 694 N.E.2d 962.  This is 
the premise, however, under which claimant proceeds. 
 
Claimant asserts that his injury-induced retirement from his former 
position of employment establishes a per se entitlement to one hundred percent 
IEC benefits.  This is incorrect.  Claimant’s allowed condition did not force him 
from the entire labor market—a circumstance that would have established an 
impaired earning capacity.  Instead, his condition merely precluded a return to the 
former position of employment.  The medical reports of Drs. Hutchison and 
Subbiah demonstrate that claimant has no functional limitations due to his 
allowed conditions that would preclude any type of work in a contaminant-free 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
environment.  There is, therefore, other remunerative employment of which 
claimant is physically capable that could either ameliorate or possibly eliminate 
the lack of income of which claimant now complains.  Equally important, 
claimant has not alleged that he is intellectually or vocationally incapable of other 
work.  Accordingly, the commission did not abuse its discretion in attributing 
claimant’s lack of earnings to claimant’s admitted lack of interest in other 
employment. 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is hereby affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
__________________ 
 
Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, 
for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Craigg E. Gould, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________