wage replacement “when an injured worker’s retirement is injury induced.”
Honda filed a mandamus action in the Court of Appeals, arguing that the Industrial Commission abused its discretion in awarding temporary total disability compensation to the claimant. However, the magistrate found no abuse of discretion. The magistrate emphasized that Honda did not contest the involuntariness of the claimant’s retirement. She distinguished caselaw indicating that a claimant who refuses an offer of light duty work must return to some other employment before being eligible for temporary total disability compensation. In that case, the claimant had no wages to replace because he had removed himself from the workforce. Contrary to that situation, the magistrate found “no evidence that claimant had abandoned the entire workforce” in this case. The magistrate’s conclusions were adopted by the Court of Appeals and Honda’s request for a writ of mandamus was denied.
This case illustrates that even claimants who have retired from employment can still be eligible for temporary total disability compensation where the retirement was “involuntary;” even when they are receiving retirement benefits.
On July 24, 2012, the Tenth District Court of Appeals adopted a magistrate judge’s conclusion that temporary total disability compensation was properly granted to a workers’ compensation claimant who had retired from employment. State ex rel. Honda of America Mfg, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 2012-Ohio-3335, No. 11AP-528.
In State ex rel. Honda, the claimant sustained a work injury in 2003. Between 2006 and 2008, the claimant participated in Honda’s “medically inactive transition program” (MIT), which provided injured workers with compensation while they pursue rehabilitation efforts. After Honda’s MIT program ended in December of 2008, the claimant was informed that his employment would end at the end of the year. Because the claimant was eligible to retire, he opted to do so.
In 2009, the claimant underwent surgery related to the conditions allowed in his claim and requested temporary total disability compensation. Administratively, Honda disputed the requested period of disability, arguing that temporary total disability compensation was not payable because the claimant had not experienced an economic loss. At hearing, the claimant testified that he retired from employment at Honda because of his industrial injury. The Industrial Commission rejected Honda’s argument finding no support for the argument that retirement benefits can be considered wage replacement “when an injured worker’s retirement is injury induced.”
Honda filed a mandamus action in the Court of Appeals, arguing that the Industrial Commission abused its discretion in awarding temporary total disability compensation to the claimant. However, the magistrate found no abuse of discretion. The magistrate emphasized that Honda did not contest the involuntariness of the claimant’s retirement. She distinguished caselaw indicating that a claimant who refuses an offer of light duty work must return to some other employment before being eligible for temporary total disability compensation. In that case, the claimant had no wages to replace because he had removed himself from the workforce. Contrary to that situation, the magistrate found “no evidence that claimant had abandoned the entire workforce” in this case. The magistrate’s conclusions were adopted by the Court of Appeals and Honda’s request for a writ of mandamus was denied.
This case illustrates that even claimants who have retired from employment can still be eligible for temporary total disability compensation where the retirement was “involuntary;” even when they are receiving retirement benefits.