Title: State ex rel. Matheney v. Cent. Ohio Coal Co.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Matheney v. Cent. Ohio Coal Co., 88 Ohio St.3d 50, 2000-Ohio-268.] 
 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. MATHENEY, APPELLANT, v. CENTRAL OHIO COAL COMPANY ET 
AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Matheney v. Cent. Ohio Coal Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 50.] 
Workers’ compensation — Court of appeals’ denial of writ of mandamus 
ordering Industrial Commission to vacate its order denying relator’s 
election for impaired earning capacity compensation under former R.C. 
4123.57(A) affirmed. 
(No. 98-1370 — Submitted January 26, 2000 — Decided February 23, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 97APD03-416. 
__________________ 
 
Larrimer & Larrimer and David H. Swanson, for appellant. 
 
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur and Christopher C. Russell, for appellee 
Central Ohio Coal Company. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Miltina A. Gavia, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In this appeal as of right, Paul A. Matheney, appellant, seeks a 
writ of mandamus ordering appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its 
order denying his election for impaired earning capacity compensation (“IEC”) 
 
 
2
under former R.C. 4123.57(A) and to grant him this compensation.  The court of 
appeals denied the writ, finding that Matheney’s lack of any desire to find work 
disqualified him from receiving IEC.  We affirm. 
 
Matheney sustained an industrial injury to his back in 1976 while working 
for appellee Central Ohio Coal Company.  His workers’ compensation claim was 
allowed for “low back strain/sprain; status post lumbar laminectomy excision of 
disc; transverse process fusion at L4-L5 with Wiltse Segmental Stabilization.”  In 
June 1993, Matheney applied for permanent partial disability compensation 
(“PPD”) and, in August 1996, the commission assessed his disability at twenty-five 
percent.  Thereafter, Matheney filed his election to be paid PPD pursuant to the 
provisions for IEC in former R.C. 4123.57(A). 
 
A commission district hearing officer (“DHO”) denied Matheney IEC, 
explaining: 
 
“[I]n light of the claimant’s testimony at hearing that it is his belief that he 
cannot physically perform any sustained employment, claimant’s testimony that he 
has not sought other work since his disability retirement in 1993 and the fact that 
the claimant is receiving Social Security Disability Benefits and disability 
retirement benefits, the [DHO] finds claimant has not demonstrated a desire to earn 
since he last worked.” 
 
 
3
 
Matheney appealed and submitted his affidavit in support.  A commission 
staff hearing officer (“SHO”) found this affidavit unpersuasive, and, after 
reviewing the evidence and arguments, affirmed the DHO’s order.  Another SHO 
refused Matheney’s further appeal. 
 
The court of appeals’ denied the requested writ on the grounds that (1) 
Matheney had not shown any desire to work and, therefore, had not sufficiently 
proved the impairment of his earning capacity, State ex rel. CPC Group, Gen. 
Motors Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 209, 559 N.E.2d 1330; and 
(2) some evidence supported the commission’s decision, State ex rel. Burley v. 
Coil Packing, Inc. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 31 OBR 70, 508 N.E.2d 936.  The 
court of appeals’ conclusion is justified.  CPC Group specifically held that IEC is 
not available unless the claimant’s inability to earn is the result of an allowed 
condition, and not any lack of interest in employment: 
 
“R.C. 4123.57(A) requires a comparison of a claimant’s pre- and post-injury 
earning capacity.  Consideration of post-injury earning capacity assumes, at a 
minimum, a desire to earn during the period in which an impairment has been 
alleged.  Receipt of compensation for impaired earning capacity when that desire is 
absent is inconsistent with [State ex rel. Johnson v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 40 Ohio 
St.3d 384, 533 N.E.2d 775, overruled on other grounds, State ex rel. Holman v. 
Longfellow Restaurant (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 44, 665 N.E.2d 1123, which held 
 
 
4
that] a claimant prove actual impaired earning capacity.”  (Emphasis sic.)  Id. at 
211-212, 559 N.E.2d at 1333. 
 
We have consistently followed this rule, see State ex rel. Loral Systems 
Group, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 59 Ohio St.3d 112, 570 N.E.2d 1106; and 
State ex rel. Pauley v. Indus. Comm. (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 263, 559 N.E.2d 1333, 
and we have no reason, based on the arguments presented, to reverse that 
precedent.  The court of appeals’ judgment, therefore, is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.