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

Citation: 2005-Ohio-1827

Docket Number: 20040669

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2005-05-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Rollins v. Indus. Comm., 105 Ohio St.3d 319, 2005-Ohio-1827.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. ROLLINS, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL \ 
COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Rollins v. Indus. Comm.,  
105 Ohio St.3d 319, 2005-Ohio-1827.] 
Workers’ compensation — R.C. 4123.56(A) — Earnings from employment 
precluding compensation for temporary total disability — Irrelevance of 
low pay, characterization of pay as gift, motivation for work, and 
perceived social value of work. 
(No. 2004-0669 — Submitted January 18, 2005 — Decided May 4, 2005. 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 03AP-444, 2004-Ohio-1058. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. 
{¶1} 
Appellant-claimant, Roger Rollins, was injured on February 7, 
1994, while employed by Central Erie Supply & Elevator Association.  He filed a 
workers’ compensation claim and began receiving temporary total disability 
compensation (“TTC”) shortly thereafter. 
{¶2} 
In 1996, the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation received 
information that claimant was working while receiving TTC.  An investigation 
revealed that claimant was the pastor of the Bellevue Missionary Baptist Church.  
He held three services per week and received $60 or $70 weekly as a “love 
offering” during the period in dispute, paid by check. 
{¶3} 
The bureau ultimately asked appellee, Industrial Commission of 
Ohio, to declare TTC overpaid from March 5, 1994, to August 22, 1996.  A 
commission district hearing officer denied the bureau’s motion after finding that 
the weekly hours claimant devoted to the church and the amount received for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
them were too insubstantial to support a finding of sustained remunerative 
employment.  A staff hearing officer reversed, finding that the amount was not 
too insubstantial to preclude TTC.  The commission denied further appeal. 
{¶4} 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals 
for Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in 
declaring TTC to have been overpaid.  The court, however, rejected  claimant’s 
assertion that his activities were not work and upheld the commission’s order. 
{¶5} 
This cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right. 
{¶6} 
R.C. 4123.56 provides two types of compensation for claimants 
who, as here, are unable for medical reasons to return to their former position of 
employment.  Both compensate for the loss of earnings incurred as the result of an 
industrial injury.  TTC presumes a total loss of earnings and is, therefore, 
“unavailable to one who has returned to work, i.e., is earning wages.”  State ex 
rel. Blabac v. Indus. Comm. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 113,  115, 717 N.E.2d 336;  
State ex rel. Ramirez v. Indus. Comm. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 630, 23 O.O.3d 518, 
433 N.E.2d 586.  The second type of compensation, wage-loss compensation, not 
only permits a return to other employment but encourages it, by paying 66 2/3 
percent of the difference between the claimant’s wages before and after the injury. 
{¶7} 
All agree that for medical reasons, the claimant cannot resume his 
prior duties as an employee of Central Erie Supply & Elevator Association.  At 
issue are his services on behalf of his church during the time he was receiving 
TTC.  Claimant does not dispute that he has been the church’s pastor since 1991 
and has regularly conducted three services per week during that period.  He also 
admits receiving from the church weekly checks that have been characterized as 
“love offerings.”  Through the years, the amount of these checks has remained 
fairly constant. 
{¶8} 
Claimant concedes that it is impermissible to receive earnings from 
employment while receiving TTC. As the staff hearing officer’s order stated, a 
January Term, 2005 
3 
warning appears on each TTC check:  “If this check is to compensate you for total 
disability, you are not entitled to it if you are working.  Therefore, you should 
return it to the BWC immediately.”  Claimant offers two explanations as to why 
his activities do not constitute work.  The first derives from R.C. 4123.01(A)(2), 
which exempts from the definition of “employee” a duly ordained, commissioned, 
or licensed minister, unless the minister is expressly considered an employee by 
the church.  Claimant’s argument implies that if he is not an employee, his 
activities cannot be considered either employment or work.  This argument, 
however, was not made previously and must be deemed waived.  State ex rel. 
Gibson v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 319, 320, 530 N.E.2d 916. 
{¶9} 
Claimant’s second argument is that the payment he received was a 
gratuity that parishioners voluntarily gave him.  Claimant concurs in a fellow 
parishioner’s description of his pastoral duties as neither a job nor work, but 
instead as a calling and privilege in the service of God. 
{¶10} As did the court below, we, too, recognize the sincerity of 
claimant’s beliefs.  However, as laudable as his motivation may be, it does not 
overcome the legal infirmities of his position. The nature of the payment is not 
determinative. In State ex rel. Parma Community Gen. Hosp. v. Jankowski, 95 
Ohio St. 3d 340, 2002-Ohio-2336, 767 N.E.2d 1143, we addressed the issue of 
charitable work by a volunteer who at the time was receiving TTC.  There was no 
evidence  that she had received any wages or other remuneration for her services. 
Thus, she remained eligible for TTC.  It is the payment itself that transforms 
claimant’s services into “work” for purposes of the statute. 
{¶11} R.C. 4123.56(A) prohibits TTC “for the period when any 
employee has returned to work,” without any qualification of the term “work.”  It 
does not distinguish certain endeavors based on, for example, amount of earnings 
or type of occupation.  Consistent with R.C. 4123.56(A), Ramirez simply referred 
to a return to “work.”  We reaffirmed that point 17 years later in Blabac.  The 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
claimant’s request that he be treated differently because of the perceived social 
value of his work conflicts with R.C. 4123.56(A). 
{¶12} We reject claimant’s second argument because it would have 
unmanageable practical and financial ramifications for future claims.  He  does 
not deny that the weekly money he receives is directly related to his pastoral 
duties.  Regardless of how claimant chooses to characterize it, he is receiving 
remuneration in exchange for labor or services, which constitute “work.”  State ex 
rel. Lawson v. Mondie Forge, 104 Ohio St.3d 39, 2004-Ohio-6086, 817 N.E.2d 
880, ¶19. 
{¶13} What claimant is therefore seeking is in effect an exception to the 
statute’s prohibition, recognized in Ramirez, against concurrent receipt of wages 
and TTC.  We decline to judicially create such an exception.  TTC is a statutorily 
created category of workers’ compensation.  We believe that any modification to 
TTC should likewise be created by the General Assembly. 
{¶14} An exception based on social or religious values would create a 
precedent that would be difficult to define or to limit.  Many persons choose their 
careers for altruistic rather than financial reasons.  As the magistrate of the court 
of appeals aptly observed, “[m]any teachers, social workers, legal advocates, 
clergy and other persons view their work as an important mission that they gladly 
pursue despite low pay.”  Others – regardless of occupational motivation or 
remuneration — also consider their job to have great social value.  The claimant’s 
proposal could, therefore, permit innumerable claimants to work while receiving 
TTC.  This change would defeat the very purpose of TTC — to replace lost 
wages.  We find it unacceptable to enforce the longstanding prohibition against 
concurrently receiving earnings and TTC against some and not others on the basis 
of the nature of the work. 
{¶15} The low amount of weekly remuneration involved is not a 
determining factor.  Blabac made no distinction based on the amount of earnings 
January Term, 2005 
5 
received.  If the amount of remuneration were a consideration, then we would be 
required to focus on the amount of earnings in each case.  Where would we draw 
the line?  R.C. 4123.56(A) does not require such a fact-intensive analysis. 
{¶16} As we emphasized in Blabac, wage-loss compensation is the 
appropriate type of compensation for claimants who experience a postinjury 
reduction in income as the result of lower-paying alternative employment.  In 
contrast, TTC is available solely for those who have no earned wages.  
Consequently, the claimant is ineligible for TTC during the period in question. 
{¶17} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent and would reverse the judgment of the 
court of appeals. 
__________________ 
Calhoun, Kademenos, Heichel & Childress and Christopher S. Clark, for 
appellant. 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, and Dennis H. Behm, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee. 
______________________