 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Clark v. Industrial Commission of Ohio8/15/2001
Workers' compensation - R.C. 4123.56(A) does not require a setoff of temporary total disability benefits where hostage leave has been paid pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
Submitted February 27, 2001
In April 1993, Darrold R. Clark, Jr., appellee, worked as a corrections officer for the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. On April 11, 1993, inmates rioted at the correctional facility and took Clark hostage. While being held captive, Clark was beaten by the prisoners and sustained multiple physical injuries, including abrasions on his wrists, an open laceration on his upper forearm, an abrasion on his face, dehydration, and malnutrition. In addition to his physical injuries, Clark suffered severe stress and anxiety as a direct result of being held hostage as well as having been beaten. The inmates released Clark on April 15, 1993.
Subsequent to his release, Clark submitted a claim to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for hostage leave pay pursuant to Article 34.05 of the collective bargaining agreement between the state of Ohio and the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association. Clark's request was granted, and, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, he received hostage leave payable at his regular rate beginning April 18, 1993, and continuing through July 10, 1993.
On April 28, 1993, Clark filed a claim with the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation ("BWC") seeking temporary total disability ("TTD") compensation for the injuries he sustained while he was held hostage. The BWC first allowed his claim for "dehydration; malnourishment; abrasions bilateral wrists and face; laceration right upper arm; atrial fibrillation." The bureau later allowed the additional condition of "post-traumatic stress disorder." On July 11, 1993, Clark began receiving TTD benefits.
On October 26, 1993, Clark filed a claim with BWC requesting TTD benefits for the period from April 12, 1993, through July 10, 1993, i.e., approximately the same period for which he had received hostage leave benefits. This claim for TTD benefits was denied. Clark appealed the denial to a BWC district hearing officer ("DHO"). The DHO denied the appeal and found that TTD compensation was not payable, reasoning that if TTD were permitted for the same period as hostage leave, hostage leave would have to be deducted from TTD benefits, resulting in no payment. Clark appealed the DHO decision, and a hearing was held before a BWC staff hearing officer ("SHO"), who affirmed the DHO decision. The SHO found that hostage leave payment was the equivalent of wages. Notwithstanding that finding, the SHO ordered TTD to be paid for April 11, 1993, through July 15, 1993, but also ordered the hostage leave pay to be deducted from the award of TTD.
Clark appealed the decision to the Industrial Commission. The commission denied Clark's claim on the basis that hostage leave compensation constituted one hundred percent wage replacement and that R.C. 4123.56(A) prevents TTD payments when a claimant has not lost any wages.
Clark filed an action in mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals, claiming that he was entitled to TTD benefits payable over the same period that he received hostage leave. Clark sought a determination that the denial of his claim was an abuse of discretion.
Pursuant to Civ.R. 53 and Loc.R. 12(M) of the Franklin County Court of Appeals, the matter was referred to a magistrate. The court magistrate found that the Industrial Commission had not abused its discretion and recommended that the court deny the writ.
Clark filed objections to the magistrate's recommendation. The court of app
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|