Case Title: State ex rel. Jones v. Kaiser Found. Hosp. Cleveland

Citation: 1999-Ohio-469

Docket Number: 19962225

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-02-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. JONES, APPELLANT, v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS 
CLEVELAND ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Jones v. Kaiser Found. Hosp. Cleveland (1999), ___ Ohio 
St.3d ___.] 
Workers’ compensation — Denial of application for wage-loss compensation by 
Industrial Commission — Commission does not abuse its discretion in 
finding that claimant did not fulfill her burden of proof in establishing a 
good-faith job search, when. 
(No. 96-2225 — Submitted January 13, 1999 — Decided February 3, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APD11-1430. 
 
Appellant-claimant Pamela Jones’s allowed workers’ compensation 
condition left her unable to return to her former position of employment as a 
medical technician with appellee Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Cleveland.  On 
December 14, 1992, she obtained a delivery position with USA Today, allegedly 
earning less than she had at Kaiser.  As a result, she sought compensation for wage 
loss pursuant to R.C. 4123.56(B) for the period over which she was either 
unemployed but allegedly seeking work, or working and making less.  No 
evidence pertaining to claimant’s alleged job-search efforts accompanied her 
motion. 
 
A district hearing officer for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio denied 
claimant’s motion “since claimant has failed to meet her burden of proof that she 
has made a good faith effort to find full-time employment, or something close to 
full-time, within her physical restrictions.”  The order was administratively 
affirmed. 
 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying her 
 
2
wage-loss compensation.  The court of appeals denied the writ after finding that 
claimant had not sustained her burden of proof. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Mondello & Levey and Scott I. Levey, for appellant. 
 
Duvin, Cahn & Hutton and Christine C. Covey, for appellee Kaiser 
Foundation Hospitals Cleveland. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Dennis L. Hufstader, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  A single issue is before us: Did the Industrial Commission 
abuse its discretion in denying, for lack of evidence of a good-faith job search, 
wage-loss compensation to claimant?  Upon review, we find that it did not. 
 
A claimant who seeks wage loss for the earnings differential between the 
former position of employment and subsequent employment may find the latter 
subject to scrutiny.  This is particularly true where the subsequent job is not a 
“traditional” full-time job, but is instead a self-employed or part-time position.  
State ex rel. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. Morse (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 210, 648 
N.E.2d 827; State ex rel. Ooten v. Siegel Interior Specialists Co. (1998), 84 Ohio 
St.3d 255, 703 N.E.2d 306.  Additional scrutiny serves to ensure that the requisite 
causal relationship exists, i.e., that claimant’s job choice was motivated by an 
injury-induced unavailability of other work and was not simply a lifestyle choice. 
 
In Ooten, we recently upheld a denial of wage-loss compensation to a 
claimant who, without first conducting a job search, became self-employed after 
he lost his ability to return to his former job.  We reasoned that the claimant never 
put himself into the labor market long enough to demonstrate that his injury 
 
3
prevented him from securing other employment at the pre-injury rate.  
Consequently, we ruled that the commission did not err in concluding that 
considerations other than claimant’s industrial injury motivated his decision to go 
into business for himself. 
 
Unlike the claimant in Ooten, the present claimant argues that she 
performed a job search.  While she admits that she presented no evidence of a job 
search, she claims that such evidence is unnecessary.  She states that a job search 
should be inferred from her successful acquisition of subsequent employment.  We 
disagree. 
 
The mere fact of a job search does not entitle a claimant to wage-loss 
compensation.  There is a qualitative component to that job search that must be 
satisfied — one of adequacy and good faith.  State ex rel. Consol. Freightways v. 
Engerer (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 241, 658 N.E.2d 278.  Adequacy is determined on 
a case-by-case basis and can encompass many factors, including the number and 
character of job contacts.  State ex rel. Vanover v. Emery Worldwide (1997), 80 
Ohio St.3d 367, 686 N.E.2d 518.  Adequacy cannot be evaluated when a claimant 
fails to submit any evidence of his or her job contacts.  Accordingly, the 
commission did not abuse its discretion in finding that claimant did not fulfill her 
burden of proof in establishing a good-faith job search. 
 
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.