Ohio Worker Gets PTD Benefits in Spite of Refusing Vocational Rehab
Acknowledging that an employee’s refusal of vocational rehabilitation services can constitute voluntary abandonment of the workforce for disability compensation purposes, an Ohio appellate court held that such a refusal does not categorically preclude the state’s Industrial Commission from determining on appropriate evidence that vocational rehabilitation efforts are obviated because the claimant is permanently totally disabled in any event [State ex rel. Heinen’s, Inc. v. Industrial Comm’n of Ohio, 2019-Ohio-4690, 2019 Ohio App. LEXIS 4765 (Nov. 14, 2019)]. That is to say where medical factors alone preclude sustained remunerative employment, there is no practical purpose for the Commission to consider nonmedical factors such as vocational rehabilitation.
Background
The employee sustained work-related injuries at the employer’s grocery store where he had been working part-time to supplement the social security disability income (“SSDI”) he received in connection with his rheumatoid arthritis. His treatments over the course of time included three left shoulder surgeries and various surgeries on both thumbs, including tendon transplants in each. His worker’s compensation claim was allowed for various conditions. Eventually referred to vocational rehabilitation, he declined to participate after expressing concerns that the accompanying living maintenance benefit could imperil his SSDI eligibility.
Staff Hearing Officer & Commission Decisions
A commission staff hearing officer denied the employee’s PTD claim, finding that his lack of participation in vocational rehabilitation for reasons unrelated to the allowed conditions in the claim constituted a voluntary abandonment of the workforce, disqualifying the employee from PTD benefits.
The Commission found that the staff hearing officer had made a clear mistake of law by equating the injured employee’s failure to participate in vocational rehabilitation to a voluntary abandonment of the workforce. The Commission reasoned that since the employee was permanently and totally disabled from a physical impairment standpoint alone, the need for vocational rehabilitation was obviated. On appeal, the magistrate upheld the Commission’s determinations.
Appellate Decision
The appellate court said the employer’s first three contentions on appeal were correct:
- Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.58(D)(3) and (4) provides that PTD shall not be compensated where an employee has “voluntarily abandoned the workforce” and/or “has not engaged in educational or rehabilitative efforts to enhance the employee’s employability, unless such efforts are determined to be in vain.”
- Voluntary abandonment and failure to undertake vocational rehabilitation where warranted “can be relied upon individually or in combination.”
- The question of whether a claimant has voluntarily retired or has voluntarily abandoned the workforce is a question of fact for the Commission to determine.
The employer was incorrect, however, in arguing the Commission’s determination were not supported by competent evidence. The court said that here the medical evidence on which the Commission relied reflected that the employee was permanently and totally disabled and was unable to perform any sustained, remunerative employment due to his allowed conditions in this claim.
As noted in the medical reports, due to the work-related injuries and resulting surgeries, the employee was unable to do many of the normal activities of daily living. Medical evidence indicated that the employee’s hands were non-functional. That evidence further indicated that the employee was unable to engage in any work activities secondary to the work-related injuries involving his left shoulder and both hands, and that he was prevented “from any use of his upper extremities.”
The court concluded that there was some evidence in the record permitting the Commission to determine that the employee’s medical problems were debilitating and ongoing from the time of the work injuries and related surgeries to an extent that his employment capabilities would not have benefitted from vocational rehabilitation, thus obviating the need for a vocational analysis.