Title: State ex rel. Bilaver v. Indus. Comm'n

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Bilaver v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-26.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-26 
THE STATE EX REL. BILAVER, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 
OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Bilaver v. Indus. Comm.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-26.] 
Workers’ compensation—Temporary total compensation—Voluntary abandonment 
of employment—Claimant failed to prove that he secured another job after 
termination and that he was prevented from doing that other job by virtue of 
industrial injury—Judgment denying writ of mandamus affirmed. 
(No. 2010-1102—Submitted November 1, 2011—Decided January 10, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 09AP-723, 2010-Ohio-2224. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio denied an application for 
temporary total disability (“TTD”) compensation filed by appellant Frank Bilaver. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
The Court of Appeals for Franklin County upheld that decision, and Bilaver 
appeals that judgment to this court. 
{¶ 2} In September 2007, Bilaver left his job with appellee, Fluid Line 
Products, Inc., after Fluid Line denied him an extended leave of absence.  When 
Bilaver later applied for TTD compensation, the commission found that his 
decision to leave Fluid Line constituted a voluntary abandonment of employment 
that barred compensation. 
{¶ 3} Bilaver filed a complaint in mandamus in the court of appeals, 
alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in finding that he had 
voluntarily abandoned his job at Fluid Line.  The court disagreed and denied the 
writ, prompting Bilaver’s appeal to this court as of right. 
{¶ 4} A claimant who voluntarily leaves his or her former position of 
employment cannot receive TTD compensation unless the claimant has secured 
other employment and is prevented from doing that job by a flare-up of the 
original industrial injury. State ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm. (2000), 89 Ohio 
St.3d 376, 732 N.E.2d 355, syllabus.  Bilaver claims that his departure from Fluid 
Line was involuntary because he did not quit his job, but was instead fired in a 
manner that did not comply with State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. 
Comm. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 401, 650 N.E.2d 469. 
{¶ 5} We find no merit to this argument.  Bilaver was not fired, he quit.  
He gave two weeks’ notice to Fluid Line after Fluid Line refused his leave 
request.  Bilaver claims to have rescinded that notice in a September 27, 2007 
letter, but the letter is largely incomprehensible and does not indicate directly or 
implicitly that Bilaver wished to keep his job at Fluid Line.  Similarly, we do not 
find that an October 3, 2007 letter from Fluid Line memorializing the 
employment separation demonstrates that he was fired from his job. 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
{¶ 6} We find therefore that Baker controls.  Lacking evidence that 
Bilaver secured another job and was prevented from doing it by his industrial 
injury, the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying TTD compensation. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Mitchell A. Stern, for appellant. 
Zashin & Rich Co., L.P.A., and Scott Coghlan, for appellee Fluid Line 
Products, Inc. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Elise W. Porter, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
______________________