Title: State ex rel. Cherryhill Mgt., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Cherryhill Mgt., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 116 Ohio St.3d 27, 2007-Ohio-
5508.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. CHERRYHILL MANAGEMENT, INC., APPELLANT, v. 
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Cherryhill Mgt., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 116 Ohio St.3d 27, 
2007-Ohio-5508.] 
Workers’ compensation — Compensation for temporary total disability — 
Disqualifying abandonment of employment not found — Denial of writ 
affirmed. 
(No. 2006-1930–Submitted September 11, 2007 – Decided October 23, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 05AP-953, 2006-Ohio-4628. 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We are asked to determine whether appellee Industrial 
Commission of Ohio abused its discretion in finding that appellee Julia Beltre did 
not voluntarily abandon her former position of employment by refusing a drug-
screening test.  We find that it did not. 
{¶ 2} Beltre worked for appellant, Cherryhill Management, Inc.  
Cherryhill’s employment policy had drug- and alcohol-testing procedures that 
included the following: 
{¶ 3} “3)  All employees may be subjected to a reasonable cause drug 
testing and breath analyzer testing. 
{¶ 4} “4)  All employees of Cherryhill Management, Inc. involved in an 
accident, while on Company time, will be subjected to a drug screening and/or 
breath analyzer to determine if drugs or alcohol played a role in the accident.  * * 
* 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 5} “5)  Employees who need medical treatment as a result of an injury 
must request that a drug and alcohol screening be performed by the medical 
provider. 
{¶ 6} “6)  Employees identified as possibly having prohibited substances 
in their system and who refuse to sign a consent release form for a urinalysis and 
breath analyzer test may be disciplined up to and including discharge of 
employment.” 
{¶ 7} On March 15, 2005, Beltre was lifting a box at work and hurt her 
right shoulder and upper back.  She reported to an urgent care center for treatment 
later that day.  The record contains no medical records from that visit.  There is, 
however, an affidavit from Pam Thrasher, an employee at the urgent care center. 
{¶ 8} According to the affidavit, Thrasher directed Beltre to supply a 
urine sample and  instructed Beltre, through a Spanish interpreter, on how to 
proceed.  Thrasher stated that Beltre nodded her assent and acted as if she needed 
to urinate immediately.  Through the closed restroom door, Thrasher heard Beltre 
urinate into the toilet.  Beltre emerged with a sample of only 10 milliliters, 60 
milliliters less than what was required for testing.  Beltre returned to the restroom 
twice but failed to produce the required sample.  Thrasher concluded: “In my 
opinion, Julia Beltre refused to cooperate and follow the directions of the 
drug/alcohol test.” 
{¶ 9} The next day, Beltre visited a local hospital with complaints of 
cervical and shoulder pain.  A urine test performed on a sample collected at that 
time was negative for drugs. 
{¶ 10} Despite this second test, Cherryhill fired Beltre.  Although the 
record contains no written documentation relating to the termination, Cherryhill 
states that it fired Beltre for refusing to submit to a drug test on the date of injury 
and refers to the Thrasher affidavit. 
January Term, 2007 
3 
{¶ 11} Cherryhill later argued to the commission that the misconduct 
leading to the firing was tantamount to a voluntary abandonment of the former 
position of employment, which barred compensation for temporary total 
disability.  A district hearing officer disagreed, finding that there was no 
persuasive evidence of Beltre’s deliberate failure to cooperate or refusal to submit 
to drug testing.  The district hearing officer accordingly found no evidence that 
Beltre had voluntarily violated Cherryhill’s work policy and, hence, no evidence 
that she had voluntarily abandoned her job.  A staff hearing officer affirmed and 
added that the drug test outlined in Cherryhill’s policy was not a qualifying drug 
test that would prevent compensation for her injury as contemplated by R.C. 
4123.54(C). 
{¶ 12} Cherryhill filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals 
for Franklin County, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in 
awarding Beltre compensation for temporary total disability.  The court of appeals 
disagreed and denied the writ, prompting Cherryhill’s appeal to this court as of 
right. 
{¶ 13} Cherryhill, in effect, argues that absent contrary evidence, the 
commission must accept Thrasher’s affidavit as persuasive.  Alternatively, it 
argues that the commission was required to explain why the affidavit was 
unconvincing.  Both propositions lack merit.  The commission is exclusively 
responsible for evaluating the weight and credibility of the evidence before it.  
State ex rel. Teece v. Indus. Comm. (1981), 68 Ohio St.2d 165, 22 O.O.3d 400, 
429 N.E.2d 433.  It is obligated only to identify the evidence on which it relied in 
making a decision.  State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio 
St.3d 481, 6 OBR 531, 453 N.E.2d 721.  It is not required to explain why a 
document was found unpersuasive.  State ex rel. Bell v. Indus. Comm. (1995), 72 
Ohio St.3d 575, 651 N.E.2d 989. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 14} Accordingly, the commission did not abuse its discretion in 
rejecting Thrasher’s affidavit and refusing to find that Beltre did not comply with 
Cherryhill’s testing requirement.  This, in turn, moots the need to discuss Beltre’s 
assertion that the testing requirements do not meet the criteria of a “qualifying 
chemical test” under R.C. 4123.54. 
{¶ 15} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
___________________ 
Gibson Law Office Co., L.P.A., and J. Miles Gibson, for appellant. 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Derrick L. Knapp, Assistant Attorney 
General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
Evans Law Office and Marquette D. Evans, for appellee Julia Beltre. 
______________________