Case Title: State ex rel. Cinergy Corp. v. Heber

Citation: 2011-Ohio-5027

Docket Number: 20101535

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2011-10-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Cinergy Corp./Duke Energy v. Heber, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5027.] 
 
 
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-5027 
THE STATE EX REL. CINERGY CORPORATION/DUKE ENERGY, APPELLEE, v. 
HEBER, APPELLANT; INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Cinergy Corp./Duke Energy v. Heber,  
Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-5027.] 
Workers’ compensation — Permanent total disability — Voluntary retirement — 
Evidence of injury as cause of retirement. 
(No. 2010-1535 — Submitted September 21, 2011 — Decided October 4, 2011.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 09AP-964,  
2010-Ohio-3484. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} At issue is appellant, Arthur R. Heber’s, eligibility for permanent 
total disability (“PTD”) compensation.  Heber was a long-time employee of 
appellee, Cinergy Corporation/Duke Energy.  In 1970, he was injured. Nineteen 
years later, he retired from Cinergy and has not worked since. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} In 2008, Heber applied for PTD compensation.  At proceedings 
before a staff hearing officer for appellee, Industrial Commission of Ohio, the 
issue of Heber’s retirement was raised.  In the order that followed, the staff 
hearing officer noted that according to Heber, he retired because of his injury.  
The hearing officer did not, however, rule on the credibility of that assertion, nor 
did she determine whether Heber’s retirement was voluntary or involuntary.  Her 
analysis instead focused solely on the medical evidence and concluded that Heber 
was permanently and totally disabled. 
{¶ 3} After administrative reconsideration was denied, Cinergy filed a 
complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that 
the commission had abused its discretion in granting Heber’s PTD application 
without first ruling on the voluntariness of his retirement.  The court of appeals 
agreed and granted a limited writ that vacated the order and ordered the 
commission to reconsider the matter and issue an amended order. 
{¶ 4} This cause is now before this court on an appeal as of right. 
{¶ 5} A retirement initiated by a claimant for reasons unrelated to the 
industrial injury is considered voluntary.  State ex rel. Rockwell Internatl. v. 
Indus. Comm. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 44, 531 N.E.2d 678.  A voluntary retirement 
from the work force prior to asserting PTD precludes the payment of 
compensation for that disability.  State ex rel. Baker Material Handling Corp. v. 
Indus. Comm. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 202, 631 N.E.2d 138,  paragraph two of the 
syllabus.  The character of a claimant’s retirement is therefore critical to a PTD 
analysis. 
{¶ 6} Contrary to Heber’s representation, the hearing officer’s brief 
reference to Heber’s assertion that he retired because of his injury does not 
constitute an affirmative determination on the character of his departure.  
Consequently, the court of appeals was correct in ordering further consideration.  
One aspect of the court of appeals’s decision, however, merits clarification. 
January Term, 2011 
3 
 
{¶ 7} Citing Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-34(D)(1)(d), the court of appeals 
implied that the only way that a claimant could substantiate that a retirement was 
injury-induced was through the submission of medical evidence of his condition 
prepared at the time of retirement.  Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-34(D)(1)(d) does not 
say this.  The provision states that if such evidence is submitted, the commission 
must consider it, but it does not say that such evidence is the only way that a 
claimant can establish that retirement was involuntary.  The commission, after all, 
is the exclusive evaluator of the weight and credibility of the evidence presented, 
and it has substantial leeway to draw inferences from that evidence.  State ex rel. 
Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc. (1987),  31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 
936; State ex rel. Lawson v. Mondie Forge, 104 Ohio St.3d 39, 2004-Ohio-6086, 
817 N.E.2d 880.  While the commission may characterize retirement as voluntary 
based on a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence of disability, see State ex 
rel. Lackey v. Indus. Comm., 129 Ohio St.3d 119, 2011-Ohio-3089, 950 N.E.2d 
542, it is not required to do so, because there may be other evidence that 
substantiates the connection between injury and retirement. 
{¶ 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. 
__________________ 
 
Frost, Brown, Todd, L.L.C., and Julie M. Bruns, for appellee Cinergy 
Corporation/Duke Energy. 
 
Butkovich & Crosthwaite Co., L.P.A., and Joseph A. Butkovich, for 
appellant. 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Rachel L. Lawless, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. 
______________________