Case Title: State ex rel. Mackey v. Dep't of Educ.

Citation: 2011-Ohio-4910

Docket Number: 20101405

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-09-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Mackey v. Ohio Dept. of Edn., Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4910.] 
 
 
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. 2011-OHIO-4910 
THE STATE EX REL. MACKEY, APPELLANT, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 
EDUCATION; INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Mackey v. Ohio Dept. of Edn.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4910.] 
Workers’ compensation — Permanent total disability — Voluntary retirement — 
Continuing jurisdiction — R.C. 4123.52. 
(No. 2010-1405 — Submitted September 21, 2011 — Decided  
September 29, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 09AP-966,  
2010-Ohio-3522. 
_________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Cerena N. Mackey, challenges appellee’s, Industrial 
Commission of Ohio’s, denial of her application for permanent total disability 
(“PTD”) compensation.  Her application was heard in March 2009 by a 
commission staff hearing officer. The parties agree that during the hearing, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Mackey’s 2005 retirement was discussed extensively.  The order that followed, 
however, did not address the issue and did not indicate whether Mackey’s 
retirement was voluntary or involuntary. It simply discussed the medical evidence 
presented and concluded that Mackey was permanently and totally disabled. 
{¶ 2} Mackey’s employer, the Ohio Department of Education, moved for 
reconsideration, alleging that the hearing officer had made a clear mistake of law 
in failing to determine whether Mackey’s retirement was voluntary or 
involuntary. The commission agreed, granted the reconsideration motion, and set 
the matter for hearing on the merits. 
{¶ 3} Addressing the retirement issue at the hearing that followed, the 
commission found that Mackey’s retirement from the workforce was unrelated to 
her industrial injury and was hence voluntary. It noted that Mackey had retired at 
age 65 with 36 years of state service. It also emphasized the lack of evidence of 
medical treatment from 2001 through 2005, which the commission felt 
undermined the credibility of Mackey’s assertion that she retired because of the 
pain and irritability generated by her allowed conditions.  Relying on State ex rel. 
Baker Material Handling Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 202, 631 
N.E.2d 138, the commission found that Mackey’s voluntary retirement foreclosed 
PTD compensation, and it vacated the award. 
{¶ 4} Mackey filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion both in 
reopening the issue of PTD eligibility and in ultimately denying her application.  
The court of appeals disagreed and denied the writ, prompting Mackey’s appeal to 
this court as of right. 
{¶ 5} The commission can invoke continuing jurisdiction under R.C. 
4123.52 to correct a clear mistake of law. State ex rel. Nicholls v. Indus. Comm. 
(1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 454, 692 N.E.2d 188.  The staff hearing officer’s failure to 
determine whether Mackey’s retirement was voluntary or involuntary is a clear 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
mistake of law because it is critical to Mackey’s eligibility for a PTD award.  As 
we held in Baker Material Handling, a claimant who voluntarily retires from the 
workforce prior to becoming permanently and totally disabled cannot receive 
PTD compensation. Paragraph two of the syllabus.  The commission did not, 
therefore, abuse its discretion in reopening the issue of Mackey’s PTD eligibility 
in order to consider the effect of her retirement upon it. 
{¶ 6} The commission also did not abuse its discretion in finding that 
Mackey’s retirement was voluntary.  Recently, in State ex rel. Lackey v. Indus. 
Comm., 129 Ohio St.3d 119, 2011-Ohio-3089, 950 N.E.2d 542, we upheld a 
determination that a retirement was voluntary based in part on an absence of 
medical evidence indicating that when the claimant applied for retirement, his 
ability to perform his regular duties was impaired by his industrial injury. 
{¶ 7} Accordingly, 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. 
__________________ 
 
Michael J. Muldoon, for appellant. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Charissa D. Payer, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee. 
______________________