Case Title: State ex rel. Corman v. Allied Holdings, Inc.

Citation: 2012-Ohio-2579

Docket Number: 2010-2002

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2012-06-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Corman v. Allied Holdings, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2579.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-2579 
THE STATE EX REL. CORMAN, APPELLANT, v. ALLIED HOLDINGS, INC. ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Corman v. Allied Holdings, Inc.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-2579.] 
Workers’ compensation—Temporary total disability—Retirement—Claimant’s 
departure from labor force precludes award of temporary total disability 
benefits when claimant makes no effort to find other work and offers no proof 
of medical inability to perform other work. 
(No. 2010-2002—Submitted April 24, 2012—Decided June 14, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 10AP-38,  
2010-Ohio-5153. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} A claimant who permanently exits the work force for reasons 
unrelated to his or her industrial injury cannot receive temporary total disability 
compensation (“TTC”).  State ex rel. Pierron v. Indus. Comm., 120 Ohio St.3d 40, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
2008-Ohio-5245, 896 N.E.2d 140, ¶ 9.  Appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio 
denied appellant Ronald R. Corman’s application for TTC after finding, among 
other things, that Corman had abandoned the work force for reasons unrelated to 
his injury.  Corman challenges that decision. 
{¶ 2} Corman has an allowed workers’ compensation claim arising from 
a 2002 injury.  He retired from appellee Allied Holdings, Inc. a year later and 
never worked again.  The record contains no evidence that he was medically 
incapable of other work.  In 2009, the commission denied Corman’s request to 
have TTC reinstated.  It found, among other things, that Corman’s retirement was 
voluntary and unrelated to his injury.  The commission noted that Corman never 
sought other work in the years after he left Allied Holdings, thus demonstrating 
his intent to permanently abandon the labor market. 
{¶ 3} Corman 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, however, agreed that Corman had abandoned 
the work force for reasons unrelated to his injury and denied the writ. 
{¶ 4} This cause is now before this court on Corman’s appeal as of right. 
{¶ 5} TTC compensates claimants “for the loss of earnings which he [or 
she] incurs while the injury heals.”  State ex rel. Ashcraft v. Indus. Comm., 34 
Ohio St.3d 42, 44, 517 N.E.2d 533 (1987).  There “can be no lost earnings, 
however, or even a potential for lost earnings, if the claimant is no longer part of 
the active work force.”  Pierron at ¶ 9.  Thus, “[w]hen the reason for this absence 
from the work force is unrelated to the industrial injury, temporary total disability 
compensation is foreclosed.”  Id. 
{¶ 6} There are important similarities between the case before us and 
Pierron.  Both claimants sought TTC years after retiring from their former 
positions of employment.  In those intervening years, neither individual made a 
credible effort to secure other employment.  Neither claimant produced evidence 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
of a medical inability to perform other work during those years, prompting the 
commission to conclude in each case that the claimant had permanently left the 
work force.  In upholding the commission’s order in Pierron, we explained that 
 
[w]hen a departure from the entire work force is not motivated by 
injury, we presume it to be a lifestyle choice, and as we stated in 
State ex rel. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Morse (1995), 72 Ohio 
St.3d 210, 216, 648 N.E.2d 827, workers’ compensation benefits 
were never intended to subsidize lost or diminished earnings 
attributable to lifestyle decisions.  In this case, the injured worker 
did not choose to leave his employer in 1997 [i.e., his job was 
eliminated], but once that separation nevertheless occurred, Pierron 
had a choice: seek other employment or work no further.  Pierron 
chose the latter.  He cannot therefore credibly allege that his lack 
of income from 2001 and beyond is due to industrial injury.  
Accordingly, he is ineligible for temporary total disability 
compensation. 
 
Id., 120 Ohio St.3d 40, 2008-Ohio-5245, 896 N.E.2d 140, at ¶ 11. 
{¶ 7} Corman’s attempt to distinguish Pierron is not persuasive.  
Corman contends that he retired from his former position of employment with 
Allied Holdings because of his injury—a claim that was not made in Pierron.  
The commission, however, did not find that Corman’s departure from Allied 
Holdings was injury-induced, but even if it had, it would not advance his cause.  
As in Pierron, there was no evidence of a medical inability to perform other work 
in the years between Corman’s departure from Allied Holdings and his request for 
TTC, so Corman had the same choice as Pierron—seek other employment or 
work no further.  When Corman elected the latter, he eliminated the possibility of, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
or potential for, lost wages.  He cannot therefore credibly assert that he has lost 
income due to his industrial injury. 
{¶ 8} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Clements, Mahin & Cohen Co., L.P.A., William E. Clements, and Paul A. 
Lewandowski, for appellant. 
Scott, Scriven & Wahoff, L.L.P., Richard Goldberg, William J. Wahoff, 
and Nelva J. Smith, for appellee Allied Holdings, Inc. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Charissa D. Payer,  Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. 
Philip J. Fulton Law Office, Philip J. Fulton, and Ross R. Fulton, urging 
reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Claimants’ Counsel and Ohio 
Association for Justice. 
Garvin & Hickey, L.L.C., Preston J. Garvin, and Michael J. Hickey, 
urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Chamber of Commerce. 
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., and Thomas R. Sant, urging affirmance for 
amicus curiae Ohio Chapter, National Federation of Independent Business. 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., and Robert A. Minor, urging 
affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Self-Insurers Association. 
______________________