Title: State ex rel. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Indus. Comm.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Indus. Comm., 86 Ohio St.3d 65, 1999-Ohio-
340.] 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL 
COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1999), 86 Ohio 
St.3d 65.] 
Workers’ compensation — Receipt of Social Security Disability benefits does not 
preclude wage-loss compensation. 
(No. 97-525 — Submitted June 9, 1999 — Decided July 7, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 95APD12-1591. 
 
Appellee-claimant, Kevin O’Nail, was injured in an industrial accident in 
1989, and his workers’ compensation claim was subsequently allowed.  Two years 
later, he filed a motion for wage-loss compensation pursuant to R.C. 4123.56(B).  
A district hearing officer for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio granted the 
motion, writing: 
 
“Claimant is found to have a wage loss beginning 6-26-91.  Claimant has 
pursued retraining as a stationary engineer and presented evidence of a plausible 
job search.  Claimant has also registered with Ohio Bureau of Employment 
Service[s].  Claimant has been unable to find employment within the physical 
limitations directly attributable to his injury.  * * *” 
 
A staff hearing officer affirmed the district hearing officer’s order, adding: 
 
“It is further reasoned that the medical reports from Dr. Fallon and Dr. Boes 
show work restrictions from the allowed conditions in this claim causing the wage 
loss in issue.  The award shall not exceed the Statutory Maximum of 200 weeks.  
The evidence on file shows a good faith effort on behalf of the claimant to find 
work within his physical capabilities.” 
 
Claimant’s employer, appellant, Asplundh Tree Expert Company (“ATEC”), 
filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
 
 
2
alleging that claimant’s receipt of Social Security Disability benefits precluded 
wage-loss compensation.  The court of appeals denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and Christopher C. Russell, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Gerald H. Waterman, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
 
Barkan & Neff Co., L.P.A., and Merl H. Wayman, for appellee O’Nail. 
 
Stewart Jaffy & Associates, Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, urging 
affirmance for amici curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers and Ohio AFL-CIO. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  We are asked to determine whether claimant’s receipt of 
Social Security Disability (“SSD”) benefits bars wage-loss compensation.  Upon 
review, we find that it does not. 
 
Social Security disability demands an inability to work.  Section 404.1505, 
Title 20, C.F.R.  Wage loss does not.  Instead, wage-loss compensation encourages 
alternative employment when a claimant cannot return to the former position of 
employment but retains a residual capacity for other work.  ATEC essentially 
maintains that a residual work capacity was implied by the job search claimant 
made as a prerequisite to his wage-loss compensation application.  ATEC argues 
that SSD benefits and wage-loss compensation are, therefore, inconsistent and 
warrant the latter’s denial. 
 
Federal and state legislators disagree.  First, SSD and work activity are not 
completely irreconcilable.  Section 422(c)(4), Title 42, U.S.Code allows SSD 
recipients to engage in a “period of trial work” without jeopardizing their SSD 
benefits. 
 
 
3
 
Second, federal law permits an SSD/workers’ compensation offset only if 
state law so provides.  Section 424a(a)(2)(A), Title 42, U.S.Code.  Federal law 
does not, therefore, view receipt of SSD and workers’ compensation benefits as 
inherently inconsistent. 
 
Neither does the law of this state.  The General Assembly has addressed two 
situations involving concurrent payment of SSD or Social Security Retirement 
benefits and workers’ compensation benefits.  See R.C. 4123.56(D) and 
4123.58(B). Wage-loss compensation is not one of them. 
 
Claimant’s receipt of SSD benefits did not, therefore, compel a denial of 
wage-loss compensation, and the commission did not abuse its discretion in so 
finding. 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.