Case Title: State ex rel. Frederick v. Licking Cty. Dept. of Human Serv.

Citation: 1998-Ohio-378

Docket Number: 19952057

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1998-06-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. FREDERICK, APPELLANT, v. LICKING COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 
HUMAN SERVICES ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Frederick v. Licking Cty. Dept. of Human Serv. (1998), 82 
Ohio St.3d 227.] 
Workers’ compensation — Industrial Commission’s order denying claimant’s 
application for R.C. 4123.56(B) wage loss compensation not an abuse of 
discretion when wage loss not caused by claimant’s industrial injury. 
(No. 95-2057 — Submitted May 27, 1998 — Decided June 24, 1998.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 94APD09-1324. 
 
Deborah Frederick, appellant, seeks a writ of mandamus ordering appellee 
Industrial Commission of Ohio (“commission”) to vacate its order denying her 
application for R.C. 4123.56(B) wage loss compensation and to grant this relief.  
The commission denied this compensation after determining that Frederick’s wage 
loss was not caused by her industrial injury and, thus, that she did not qualify.  The 
Court of Appeals for Franklin County refused to issue the writ, holding that the 
commission’s decision was not an abuse of discretion.  The cause is now before 
this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Barkan & Neff, L.P.A., and Merl H. Wayman, for appellant. 
 
Arter & Hadden, Douglas M. Bricker and Lisa A. Reid, for appellee Licking 
County Department of Human Services. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Jonathan A. Good, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellees Industrial Commission and Administrator, Bureau 
of Workers’ Compensation. 
__________________ 
 
2
 
Per Curiam.  Frederick injured her back, neck, and shoulder on March 20, 
1990, while employed as an Administrative Secretary I for appellee Licking 
County Department of Human Services (“LCDHS”).  Her workers’ compensation 
claim was allowed for “lumbar strain; cervical, dorsal and lumbosacral 
strain/strain; right shoulder strain/sprain.”  She received temporary total and/or 
living maintenance compensation until October 15, 1991 for all but an 
approximately three-week period in June 1990, during which time she attempted, 
but was unable, to continue working. 
 
Frederick also participated in rehabilitation programs from December 1990 
until October 15, 1991.  On that day, she returned to work part-time as part of an 
agreed plan for her gradual progression to full-time employment.  On October 28, 
1991, she returned on a full-time basis to her Administrative Secretary I position 
with the permission of her doctor, Michael B. Shannon, M.D., who did not 
mention any work restrictions for her return.  Frederick performed her secretarial 
duties for nearly a year before her position was abolished on October 16, 1992 due 
to a reduction in force. 
 
In December 1992, Frederick accepted employment with an insurance 
company as a Technical Secretary at a salary lower than she had been paid in her 
secretarial position for LCDHS.  She applied for wage loss compensation based in 
part on a March 18, 1993 report by Dr. Shannon.  Dr. Shannon wrote: 
 
“Because of Ms. Frederick’s strain of her cervical, thoracic and lumbar 
spine regions, sustained in an injury at work on 3/20/90, and her continuing 
chronic pain, the following restrictions remain in effect for her: Lifting or carrying 
of less than 10 pounds, limited standing, walking, sitting, bending, kneeling, 
squatting or twisting without frequent changes in body position. 
 
3
 
“Because of the restrictions placed on her, she apparently was displaced 
from her job with Licking County Department of Human Services and has 
accepted employment for lesser wages.  The restrictions will remain in effect 
indefinitely and, therefore, the patient will be unable to return to her original job 
as an administrative secretary at a higher wage rate.” 
 
In June 1993, a commission district hearing officer denied Frederick’s 
application for wage loss compensation.  He explained: 
 
“The District Hearing Officer finds that claimant has not demonstrated that 
her allowed conditions have caused her to have sustained a loss in wages.  In this 
regard, the District Hearing Officer finds that the functional limitations imposed 
by Dr. Shannon in his 3-18-93 report are consistent with the duties required of 
claimant in her former position of employment.  Moreover, there is no evidence 
that claimant can not return to her former position of employment on a 
reduced/limited basis. * * *” 
 
On administrative appeal, the regional board of review disagreed with the 
district hearing officer’s assessment of the evidence, vacated the relevant portion 
of his order, and granted wage loss compensation.  On further appeal, commission 
staff hearing officers vacated the regional board’s order and reinstated the district 
hearing officer’s order denying wage loss compensation.  Concurring in the 
district hearing officer’s order, the staff hearing officers added: 
 
“[T]he denial of wage loss was based also on the job descriptions on file 
from the employer and that the 9-16-92 and 9-30-92 letters from the employer 
which show the claimant’s job at Licking County was eliminated due to a lack of 
funding.  This evidence shows the claimant’s job duties were within the physical 
restrictions from Dr. Shannon and that the claimant left her former job not due to 
the allowed injuries but because the job was eliminated.” 
 
4
 
Frederick then sought the instant writ of mandamus in the court of appeals, 
arguing that the commission abused its discretion in finding that Frederick’s wage 
loss resulted from economic cutbacks, not impairment attributable to her industrial 
injury.  The court denied the writ because evidence established that Frederick’s 
medical restrictions had not impeded her performance as a secretary for LCDHS 
and, therefore, could not have generated the wage loss she later suffered.  We 
agree. 
 
R.C. 4123.56(B) provides: 
 
“Where an employee in a claim allowed under this chapter suffers a wage 
loss as a result of returning to employment other than his former position of 
employment or as a result of being unable to find employment consistent with the 
claimant’s physical capabilities, he shall receive compensation at sixty-six and two 
thirds per cent of his weekly wage loss not to exceed the statewide average weekly 
wage for a period not to exceed two hundred weeks.” 
 
Corresponding former Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-32(D) provided, in part: 
 
“[T]he payment of compensation or wage loss pursuant to division (B) of 
section 4123.56 of the Revised Code shall commence upon application with a 
finding of any of the following: 
 
“(1)  The employee, as a direct result of the allowed conditions in the claim, 
returns to employment other than his former position of employment and suffers a 
wage loss; 
 
“(2)  The employee returns to his former position of employment but suffers 
a wage loss; 
 
“(3)  The employee, as a direct result of the allowed conditions of his claim, 
is unable to find work consistent with the employee’s physical capabilities and 
suffers a wage loss.” 
 
5
 
To qualify for wage loss compensation under these laws, “a claimant must * 
* * show that he or she has suffered diminished wages as a result of a medical 
impairment that is causally related to the industrial injury.”  State ex rel. Pepsi-
Cola Bottling Co. v. Morse (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 210, 215, 648 N.E.2d 827, 832.  
More specifically, “[c]laimant’s allowed conditions must underlie claimant’s 
inability to secure comparably paying employment in order for [claimant] to be 
entitled to benefits.”  Id.  This means that a medical inability to secure comparably 
paying work is a prerequisite for wage loss eligibility.  State ex rel. Williams-
Laker v. Indus. Comm. (1998), 80 Ohio St.3d 694, 697, 687 N.E.2d 1379, 1382. 
 
Moreover, where a claimant is medically precluded due to industrial injury 
from executing any or all former job duties, the fact that the claimant’s position is 
abolished is of no consequence to her wage loss eligibility.  State ex rel. The 
Andersons v. Indus. Comm. (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 539, 542-543, 597 N.E.2d 143, 
146.  As long as medical impediments to performance exist, the injury continues to 
generate the disability that may produce a wage loss.  But where, as here, the 
claimant’s allowed condition does not prevent her from resuming or continuing to 
perform her former duties, she obviously cannot establish that the allowed 
condition compelled her to accept a lower paying job.  Whatever the extent of her 
disability, it had no effect on her ability to earn at her pre-injury salary level. 
 
Evidence of record shows that Frederick returned to her Administrative 
Secretary I job at LCDHS full-time in October 1991, that she completely 
performed in this position for close to a year notwithstanding any restrictions her 
doctor may have imposed, and that she was laid off for economic reasons in 
October 1992.  She suffered a wage loss when she subsequently accepted another 
secretarial position, but the reason for her change of employment had nothing to 
 
6
do with her medical restrictions.  She left LCDHS because her job had been 
abolished. 
 
To pay wage loss compensation to a laid-off claimant who is capable of 
performing her former duties is tantamount to paying wage loss for the mere fact 
of the layoff.  State ex rel. Chora v. Indus. Comm. (1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 238, 241, 
658 N.E.2d 276, 278.  Thus, the commission did not abuse its discretion in 
denying Frederick’s wage loss application, and the court of appeals properly so 
found.  Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.