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

Citation: 2003-Ohio-3960

Docket Number: 20021632

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-08-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Hammons v. Indus. Comm., 99 Ohio St.3d 334, 2003-Ohio-3960.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. HAMMER, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 
OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Hammer v. Indus. Comm., 99 Ohio St.3d 334, 2003-Ohio-
3960.] 
Workers’ compensation — Application for temporary total disability 
compensation denied by Industrial Commission — Voluntary departure 
from employment precluded temporary total disability compensation — 
Termination is voluntary when it is generated by claimant’s violation of 
a written work rule that (1) clearly defined the prohibited conduct, (2) 
had been previously identified by the employer as a dischargeable 
offense, and (3) was known or should have been known to the employee 
— State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm. and State ex rel. 
Daniels v. Indus. Comm., applied and followed. 
(No. 2002-1632 — Submitted June 24, 2003 — Decided August 6, 2003.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 01AP-1315, 2002-
Ohio-4294. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
Appellant-claimant, Ronald J. Hammer Sr., was a security officer 
for Continental Secret Service Bureau, Inc.  On November 11, 1999, he 
acknowledged receiving an employee handbook that stated that sexually 
inappropriate comments and gestures were prohibited by the employer and could 
result in discharge.  On March 23, 2000, claimant received a warning for violating 
that rule. 
{¶2} 
On January 17, 2001, claimant hurt his left shoulder in the course 
of his employment.  A workers’ compensation claim was allowed, and temporary 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
total disability compensation (“TTC”) was paid for the two days of work missed 
immediately after the injury.  He returned on January 20, 2001, and continued to 
work until he was fired for a second incident of inappropriate comments.  There is 
no evidence that claimant secured other employment thereafter. 
{¶3} 
Claimant’s shoulder eventually required surgery, and claimant 
sought TTC following the procedure.  Appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio 
denied the request after finding that claimant’s termination comported with State 
ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 401, 650 
N.E.2d 469, and was hence deemed voluntary, barring TTC. 
{¶4} 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals 
for Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in 
denying TTC.  The court of appeals disagreed and denied the writ, prompting an 
appeal to this court as of right. 
{¶5} 
State ex rel. Daniels v. Indus. Comm., 99 Ohio St.3d 282, 2003-
Ohio-3626, 791 N.E.2d 440, ¶ 7-8, recently synthesized past decisions on the 
effect of firing on TTC: 
{¶6} 
“The effect of a departure from employment on TTC eligibility 
depends on (1) whether the departure was voluntary, State ex rel. Rockwell 
Internatl. v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 44, 531 N.E.2d 678, and (2) 
whether the claimant was later forced from different employment by aggravation 
of the same industrial injury.  State ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm. (2000), 89 Ohio 
St.3d 376, 732 N.E.2d 355; State ex rel. McCoy v. Dedicated Transport, Inc., 97 
Ohio St.3d 25, 2002-Ohio-5305, 776 N.E.2d 51.  This is true regardless of 
whether the separation was caused by a quitting or a firing.  Baker; McCoy. 
{¶7} 
“Since the present claimant was not removed from subsequent 
employment, TTC hinges on the voluntariness of his departure.  If it is deemed 
voluntary, TTC over the period at issue is barred.  State ex rel. Ashcraft v. Indus. 
Comm. (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 42, 517 N.E.2d 533.  State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific 
January Term, 2003 
3 
Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 401, 403, 650 N.E.2d 469, deemed a 
voluntary departure a firing that was ‘generated by the claimant’s violation of a 
written work rule or policy that (1) clearly defined the prohibited conduct, (2) had 
been previously identified by the employer as a dischargeable offense, and (3) 
was known or should have been known to the employee.’ ” 
{¶8} 
The claimant in this case does not dispute that his firing comported 
with Louisiana-Pacific, nor does he allege that he was removed from subsequent 
employment by his allowed conditions.  Accordingly, he is disqualified from TTC 
over the period requested. 
{¶9} 
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Gallon & Takacs Co., L.P.A., and Theodore A. Bowman, for appellant. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Thomas L. Reitz, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
__________________