Failing to Accept Light Duty, Ohio Worker Scuttles Shot at TTD Compensation

Case File

When an Ohio worker failed to appear for a light-duty position, did it spell the end of his quest for TTD compensation? Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the decision.

Case

State Ex Rel. Papageorgiou v. Avalotis Corporation, No. 2025-0429 (Ohio 12/03/25)

What Happened?

A worker suffered a work-related neck injury while operating a sandblaster and underwent surgery later that day. His workers' compensation claim was allowed for a "high pressure blast injury with complex abrasion with embedded foreign bodies ... cervical sprain; cervical strain; head contusion."

The employer continued paying his wages from the date of the injury. The employer also offered him light-duty work and indicated that it would accommodate his return to work with a no-heavy-lifting restriction.

However, the worker did not report to work in the light-duty position, and the employer stopped paying his wages.

The worker requested temporary total disability compensation commencing the day after his injury. After a hearing, a district hearing officer granted the request and rejected the employer's argument that the worker voluntarily abandoned his job by not accepting the light-duty offer.

The employer appealed, and a staff hearing officer denied the worker's request for TTD, finding that he had voluntarily abandoned his employment by not accepting the light-duty position that his treating physician indicated he could perform.

The commission declined to accept the worker's appeal of the SHO's order, so the worker took his case to court. The court ultimately denied the worker's writ of mandamus.

The worker appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

To qualify for TTD compensation in Ohio, a claimant must show not only that he lacks the medical capability of returning to the former position of employment but that a cause-and-effect relationship exists between the industrial injury an actual loss of earnings.

At the time of the worker's injury, an Ohio statute provided that TTD compensation would not be made when work within the physical capabilities of the employee was made available by the employer or another employer.

What the Ohio Supreme Court Said

Considering the four "propositions of law" the worker asserted, the court found that none had merit, and it upheld the lower court's ruling in the employer's favor.

Specifically, the court rejected the worker's contentions thus:

(1) The commission abused its discretion by failing to consider whether the employer's light-duty job offer was a proposal made in good faith under Ohio law. The worker's brief argued that the employer identified only one restriction even though the doctor noted multiple restrictions. However, according to the court, the issue of whether the light-duty job that the employer offered was within the worker's physical capabilities was an issue of suitable employment, not whether the job offer was made in good faith. "The [worker] has not presented any argument on appeal to show a lack of good faith on [the employer's] part, such as by alleging that [the employer] created a position with work shifts that it knew he could not cover or that [the employer] offered a certain position to embarrass him," the court wrote.

(2) The administrative code "made clear" that a treating physician's indication that a claimant could return to his former position of employment or other available suitable employment was only a basis to terminate on-going TTD compensation, not a basis to prevent payment of an initial period of TTD compensation. The court rejected this argument because, in its view, the worker did not prove that the code "clearly prohibited" the commission from relying on the opinion of the worker's own treating physician in deciding the worker's request for TTD compensation.

(3) The commission abused its discretion by finding that the worker had voluntarily abandoned his employment without first considering whether he had voluntarily abandoned the entire workforce. The court explained that the voluntary abandonment doctrine was not applicable to the facts of the worker's case, and although the SHO found that the worker had voluntarily abandoned his position, "that finding was inconsequential to the overall decision." Instead, the employer had made work available within the worker's physical capabilities, but the worker refused the job offer of suitable employment and was therefore not entitled to TTD compensation.

Workers' Comp 101: In Ohio, when a workers' compensation claimant voluntarily removes himself from his former position of employment for reasons unrelated to a workplace injury, he is no longer eligible for TTD compensation, even if the claimant remains disabled at the time of his separation from employment.

The defense of voluntary abandonment is distinct from the defense of refusing available suitable employment, which provides that a claimant who was offered a job within his physical capabilities could not receive temporary total disability compensation if he refused that job. Under those circumstances, it is the injured worker's refusal of the job offer of suitable employment that results in the employee's loss of wages.

(4) The employer's job offer did not set forth the physical requirements for the light-duty position, so the job offer was "legally deficient." The court rejected this argument because the worker cited no authority supporting the contention that the offer was "legally deficient." Specifically, the court highlighted that the worker did not prove that he orally refused a job offer or that the employer intended to initiate proceedings to terminate TTD compensation.

Glossary Check: Under Ohio workers' compensation law, "job offer" means a proposal, made in good faith, of suitable employment within a reasonable proximity of the injured worker's residence.

Verdict: The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's ruling.

Takeaway

In Ohio, an injured worker's refusal of a job offer of suitable employment may result in the worker's loss of wages.

Share This Article: