[Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 132 Ohio St.3d 520, 2012-Ohio-3895.] 

THE STATE EX REL. BROWN, APPELLEE, v. HOOVER UNIVERSAL, INC.,

D.B.A. JOHNSON CONTROLS ET AL., APPELLANTS. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 

132 Ohio St.3d 520, 2012-Ohio-3895.] 

Workers’ compensation—Voluntary abandonment of employment—Examination 

of the totality of the circumstances required—Judgment affirmed.

(No. 2011-0127—Submitted June 19, 2012—Decided August 30, 2012.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 

No. 10AP-21, 2010-Ohio-6174. 

__________________

Per Curiam. 

{¶ 1} Absent a return to other employment, an employee who voluntarily 

abandons his or her former position of employment cannot receive temporary 

total disability compensation (“TTC”). State ex rel. Baker v. Indus. Comm., 89 

Ohio St.3d 376, 380-381, 732 N.E.2d 355 (2000). Employment discharge can 

constitute a voluntary abandonment when it is a consequence of behavior that the 

claimant willingly undertook. State ex rel. Watts v. Schottenstein Stores Corp., 68 

Ohio St.3d 118, 121, 623 N.E.2d 1202 (1993). Voluntariness, however, can be 

imputed to a claimant’s misconduct only when the misconduct arises from a 

violation of a written work rule that (1) clearly defined the prohibited conduct, (2) 

identified the misconduct as a dischargeable offense, and (3) was known or 

should have been known to the employee. State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. 

Indus. Comm., 72 Ohio St.3d 401, 403, 650 N.E.2d 469 (1995). 

{¶ 2} Appellee, LaRon Brown, was injured in 2003 while working for 

appellant Hoover Universal, Inc., d.b.a. Johnson Controls. Five years later, 

Brown was fired for violating the company’s attendance policy. His termination 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

was later the basis for appellant Industrial Commission of Ohio’s denial of his 

request for TTC. We must determine whether the commission properly analyzed 

the circumstances of his firing in concluding that his dismissal barred TTC. 

{¶ 3} The attendance policy at issue gave nonprobationary employees 

such as Brown 16 hours of unpaid leave every three months. These hours were 

deposited into a “bank” and, with a supervisor’s approval, could be used as 

needed. Generally, the exchange rate was one to one – an hour of bank time for 

an hour’s absence. The use of bank time to cover illness, however, was different. 

When an illness resulted in consecutive days off, an employee would be charged 

only eight hours of time for the entire absence if the employee called in each day 

of his or her absence and produced a doctor’s slip upon return. 

{¶ 4} Because only portions of the policy were entered into the record, it 

is not known whether unused hours rolled over to the next quarter. It is clear, 

however, that employees were prohibited from using more bank hours than they 

had on account, and the policy specified that violators would be fired. Brown 

signed an acknowledgment form indicating that he had received a copy of the 

attendance policy, had read it, and understood its contents. 

{¶ 5} In the first quarter of 2008, Johnson Controls charged the 

following withdrawals to Brown’s bank-hour account: three hours on January 30, 

2008; eight hours on January 31, 2008; eight hours on March 10, 2008; and eight 

hours on March 11, 2008. Because Brown had exceeded the number of hours that 

he had on account, Brown was fired. In a grievance filed with his union, Brown 

apparently claimed that Johnson Controls had miscalculated the number of bank 

hours used, but he did not prevail. 

{¶ 6} Brown later moved for TTC, alleging that after his dismissal, he 

had become temporarily and totally disabled by injuries suffered while working. 

At the commission hearings that followed, the character of Brown’s termination 

was debated. Johnson Controls maintained that the dismissal constituted a 
January Term, 2012 

3 

voluntary abandonment of the former position of employment that barred TTC. 

Brown’s discharge, it argued, comported with both Watts, 68 Ohio St.3d 118, 623 

N.E.2d 1202, and Louisiana-Pacific, 72 Ohio St.3d 401, 650 N.E.2d 469, because 

it arose from Brown’s violation of an acknowledged written work rule that 

identified excessive bank-hour usage as a dischargeable offense. 

{¶ 7} Brown denied that his discharge amounted to a voluntary 

abandonment and challenged his employer’s reliance on Watts and LouisianaPacific. He insisted that he had not violated the work rule at issue because his 

withdrawals had in fact not exceeded his account balance. Brown claimed that 

Johnson Controls should not have charged three hours to his account on January 

30 because he was at a company-ordered medical exam related to his claim. He 

also argued that he should have been charged just eight hours total for March 10 

and 11—not Johnson Controls’ 16—because those sick days were consecutive 

and the C-84 form requesting TTC, signed by a doctor, served as the required 

doctor’s slip. Return of those 11 hours to Brown’s bank would bring his quarterly 

withdrawal to 16, equal to the number of hours he apparently had in his account.1

 

Johnson Controls did not challenge Brown’s claim that his account should not 

have been charged for the January 30 medical exam, but it stood by its assessment 

of 16 hours for March 10 and 11. 

{¶ 8} Brown alternatively tried to disavow understanding the bank-hour 

protocol. Relying on Brown’s signed acknowledgment that he had read and 

understood the attendance policy, a commission staff hearing officer rejected this 

argument and devoted her discussion to that issue. There was no mention of the 

eight disputed hours arising from Brown’s consecutive-day absence in March; the 

 

1. Evidence of record does not specify how many hours that Brown had in his account, but the 

tenor of his argument—as well as that of Johnson Controls—suggests that Brown had a balance of 

16 hours. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

order simply concluded that Brown had violated the rule in question. Further 

appeal was refused. 

{¶ 9} Brown filed a complaint in mandamus in the Tenth District Court 

of Appeals, alleging that the commission had abused its discretion in finding that 

his termination barred TTC. The magistrate for the court of appeals found that 

the commission had an affirmative obligation in every termination case to 

evaluate whether just cause for discharge had existed and recommended that the 

cause be returned to determine whether Brown’s bank-hour withdrawals had been 

properly calculated. The court of appeals adopted the magistrate’s 

recommendation. The court held that the deliberate misconduct necessary to 

support a finding of voluntary abandonment could not be imputed to Brown 

unless it was clear that he had actually violated the policy. 

{¶ 10} Johnson Controls now appeals to this court as of right. 

{¶ 11} An employment separation is deemed voluntary when it is initiated 

by the claimant for reasons unrelated to the industrial injury. State ex rel. 

Rockwell Internatl. v. Indus. Comm., 40 Ohio St.3d 44, 45, 531 N.E.2d 678 

(1988). Although it is the employer that formalizes the employment separation 

when a worker is fired, dismissal is nevertheless considered employee-initiated, 

and hence voluntary, when it arises from the employee’s decision to engage in 

conduct that he or she knows will result in termination. Watts, 68 Ohio St.3d at 

121, 623 N.E.2d 1202; Louisiana-Pacific, 72 Ohio St.3d at 403, 650 N.E.2d 469. 

In other words, when a claimant voluntarily misbehaves, he or she tacitly assents 

to the consequences. State ex rel. Galligan v. Indus. Comm., 124 Ohio St.3d 233, 

2010-Ohio-3, 921 N.E.2d 231, ¶ 11. 

{¶ 12} Brown argues that his discharge cannot be considered voluntary 

because he did not engage in prohibited conduct or did not do so knowingly. At 

his commission hearing, Brown asserted that his bank-hour withdrawals exceeded 

his available balance only because Johnson Controls improperly charged him with 
January Term, 2012 

5 

16 hours, rather than eight, for consecutive sick days. This argument, in turn, 

raised the issue of whether a previously submitted C-84 disability form was a 

valid doctor’s excuse for purposes of the consecutive-sick-day exception to the 

bank-hour policy. 

{¶ 13} The issue of the C-84 form was critical for two reasons. First, if 

the C-84 was found to be a valid doctor’s excuse, it would support Brown’s 

assertion that he satisfied the requirements of the consecutive-sick-day exception 

and should have been charged just eight hours for this absence. This 

determination would affect Johnson Controls’ bank-hour calculation. Second, 

even if the C-84 were found to be inadequate, a good-faith belief that it satisfied 

the rule’s requirement could support Brown’s alternative claim that his violation 

of the rule was neither knowing nor deliberate. 

{¶ 14} The hearing officer, however, discussed none of this in her order. 

The omission is unacceptable. In State ex rel. Smith v. Superior’s Brand Meats, 

Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 408, 411, 667 N.E.2d 1217 (1996), we expressly 

“recognize[d] the great potential for abuse in allowing a simple allegation of 

misconduct to preclude temporary total disability compensation. We therefore 

find it imperative to carefully examine the totality of the circumstances when such 

a situation exists.” See also State ex rel. Pretty Prods., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 77 

Ohio St.3d 5, 7, 670 N.E.2d 466 (1996); State ex rel. McKnabb v. Indus. Comm., 

92 Ohio St.3d 559, 561, 752 N.E.2d 254 (2001); State ex rel. Daniels v. Indus. 

Comm., 99 Ohio St.3d 282, 2003-Ohio-3626, 791 N.E.2d 440, ¶ 10-12. Because 

such an examination did not take place, a return to the commission for further 

consideration and amended order is warranted. 

{¶ 15} Accordingly, we hereby issue a limited writ of mandamus that 

vacates the commission’s order and returns this cause to it for further 

consideration and amended order. 

{¶ 16} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

Judgment affirmed. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL,

LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

__________________ 

Gallon, Takacs, Boissoneault & Shaffer Co., L.P.A. and Theodore A. 

Bowman, for appellee. 

Bugbee & Conkle, L.L.P., Gregory B. Denny, and Mark S. Barnes, for 

appellant. 

______________________