Title: State ex rel. Sanese Serv. v. Indus. Comm.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

THE STATE EX REL. SANESE SERVICES, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 
OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Sanese Serv. v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 213.] 
Workers’ compensation — Wage-loss compensation under R.C. 4123.56(B) — 
Employee demoted from route supervisor to host floater — Industrial 
Commission does not abuse its discretion in choosing claimant’s wages as a 
route supervisor as the amount from which to deduct claimant’s reduced 
earnings as a host floater in determining wage-loss compensation. 
(No. 95-418—Submitted April 15, 1997—Decided July 16, 1997.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 93APD11-1602. 
 
Appellee-claimant, John Ogg, was injured in 1989 while in the course of 
and arising from his employment as a “route supervisor” for appellant, Sanese 
Services.  When injured, claimant was making approximately $512 per week.  
Following several months of recuperation, he returned to his former job as route 
supervisor. 
 
In November 1990, claimant received a written performance warning from 
Sanese.  The warning was in response to two separate incidents in which claimant 
had left his route money box on a customer’s dock and had driven away.  When 
claimant’s performance failed to improve, he was demoted, in February 1991, to a 
“route skipper” with weekly earnings of $400. 
 
Shortly thereafter, claimant’s medical condition worsened.  Following a 
period of temporary total disability, claimant returned to a job at Sanese that was 
consistent with his physical restrictions.  That job, as a “host floater,” paid $280 
per week. 
 
2
 
Claimant applied for wage-loss compensation pursuant to R.C. 4123.56(B).  
A district hearing officer for appellee Industrial Commission granted the 
application, stating: 
 
“* * * [T]he claimant has met his burden of persuasion on the issue of wage 
loss.  In this regard, the Hearing Officer finds persuasive the 6-2-91 report of Dr. 
Steiman and the 7-29-91 report of Dr. Merryman who both relate [that] claimant is 
capable of only light duty employment, which is different than his former position 
of employment.  Additionally, the Hearing Officer finds that claimant returned to 
work 8-5-91 in a reduced capacity consistent with his functional limitations.  
Accordingly, wage loss compensation is to be paid at the formula of full weekly 
wage — actual wages earned times 2/3.  This award shall begin on 8-5-91 and 
shall continue upon submission of wage documentation, subject to the statutory 
maximum and [district hearing officer] Order terminating the benefit. 
 
“It is noted that the self-insured employer has begun to pay the above wage 
loss compensation but at an incorrect rate.  The self-insured employer shall adjust 
the award consistent with this order. * * *” 
 
The regional board of review affirmed.  Staff hearing officers, however, 
modified the prior orders as follows: 
 
“* * * The Staff Hearing Officers find no persuasive legal arguments for 
adjusting the claimant’s rate of payment for Wage Loss, as argued by the 
employer.  The rate of payment is based on the higher of the Average Weekly 
Wage or Full Weekly Wage for the former position of employment at the time of 
injury, route supervisor.  A later job demotion for reasons unrelated to the injury is 
not relevant evidence to this determination. 
 
“In all other aspects [the] order of the Regional Board is affirmed.” 
 
3
 
Sanese filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin 
County, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in using claimant’s 
wages as route supervisor as the basis for determining the amount of wage loss.  
The court of appeals denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
___________________ 
 
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Diane C. Reichwein and Christopher C. 
Russell, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Jeffrey B. Duber, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
 
Gibson & Robbins-Penniman and Gus Robbins-Penniman, for appellee 
Ogg. 
___________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  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.” 
 
Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-32(D) states: 
 
“In injury claims in which the date of injury * * * is on or after August 22, 
1986, the payment of compensation [for] 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: 
 
4
 
“(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 but suffers a wage loss.   
 
“(3)  The employee, as a direct result of the allowed conditions in the claim, 
is unable to find work consistent with the employee’s physical capabilities and 
suffers a wage loss.” 
 
Sanese does not assail claimant’s wage-loss eligibility under Ohio 
Adm.Code 4121-3-32(D)(1).  It challenges instead the amount payable.  Wage loss 
is contingent on a post-injury earnings reduction.  At issue is the amount from 
which claimant’s wages as a host floater is to be deducted. 
 
Wage-loss compensation is not mentioned in R.C. 4123.61, the “average 
weekly wage” statute.  Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-32(A)(5), however, defines “wage 
loss” as “the difference between the employee’s present earnings and the greater 
of the employee’s full weekly wage or average weekly wage.”  The commission 
followed this formula here. 
 
Sanese’s argument suggests that claimant’s actions — specifically those that 
precipitated his demotion—break the causal relationship between the claimant’s 
injury and the amount of wage loss claimed, and necessitate a departure from this 
formula.  We find the analysis in State ex rel. Watts v. Schottenstein Stores Corp. 
(1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 118, 623 N.E.2d 1202, persuasive here.  There, we declined 
to elevate employee conduct to a preeminent factor in determining eligibility for 
wage-loss compensation.  We held that employee conduct was not an automatic 
bar to wage-loss compensation based upon our overriding concern of furthering 
the purposes of the Workers’ Compensation Act, which is to compensate workers 
for injuries suffered in their employment.  Thus, while the commission could deny 
 
5
wage-loss compensation based on a claimant’s actions, it was not compelled to do 
so. 
 
We find that this same logic applies to calculating the amount of wage-loss 
compensation as well.  Consequently, the commission did not abuse its discretion 
in choosing claimant’s wages as a route supervisor as the amount from which to 
deduct claimant’s reduced earnings as a host floater. 
 
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.