A worker for a disability services provider in Ohio who applied for temporary total disability after filing a workers compensation claim following a back sprain in 2015 and who tested positive for marijuana use could still be entitled to benefits, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled Friday.

The Ohio Industrial Commission previously denied Christopher T. Merritt’s application for disability compensation following his injury while working for New Avenues to Independence Inc. because the commission found that Merritt had violated his employer’s drug-free-workplace policy, thereby “voluntarily abandoning his employment and making him ineligible for benefits” per state law, according to documents in The State ex rel. Merritt v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al., filed in Columbus.

Asserting that the commission had abused its discretion, Mr. Merritt asked the Tenth District Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus ordering the commission to conduct a new hearing on the grounds that the marijuana use — undisputed by both parties — was not linked to his termination, according to documents.

Following the appeals court denying the writ, Mr. Merritt filed another appeal, asserting that “the commission’s order fails to set forth the evidence that the commission relied on to conclude that his failed drug test was the reason for his termination,” according to documents.

Divided in its decision, the highest court agreed, writing “because the order does not specifically state what evidence the staff hearing officer relied on to reach the conclusion that Merritt was terminated for violating his employer’s drug-free workplace policy, thereby voluntarily abandoning his employment, it does not comply with” state case law from 1983 that requires evidence for his dismissal.

In its decision, the court ordered the commission to “vacate its prior orders, further consider Merritt’s claim, and enter a new order that (1) specifically states what evidence the commission has relied on in reaching its conclusion and (2) briefly explains the reason for the commission’s decision.”

Three of the seven justices dissented, arguing in part that the 37-year-old state Supreme Court case in which the court relied on to grant the writ — State ex. Rel. Mitchell v. Robins & Myers Inc. — holds little “precedential value” and “its progeny has been severely undercut, if not eliminated, by subsequent developments in the law, we should resist its application here.”

According to the dissenting opinion, “Merritt himself points to the positive drug test, the drug-free-workplace policy, and the termination notice as the basis of the staff-hearing officer’s decision — he just does not agree that this evidence supports a finding that he was terminated for using marijuana.”

One of the dissenting judges said the writ should be denied on the basis that “there is little confusion as to what evidence the Industrial Commission relied on in making its decision.”