The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the denial of temporary total disability benefits to an injured worker who did not report for a light-duty assignment that two doctors said he could do.
As documented in the ruling Wednesday in State ex rel. Papageorgiou v. Avalotis Corp., Evangelo Papageorgiou, an employee of Avalotis , injured his neck on the job in late May 2018 and underwent same-day surgery. On June 5, one of the surgeon who operated on him said he could do light-duty work with no heavy lifting. Later that month, an Avalotis project manager offered him a light-duty job that complied with the restriction on heavy lifting and instructed him to report the next day.
Mr. Papageorgiou’s treating physician reviewed the written job offer and agreed that Mr. Papageorgiou was capable of doing the work. Nevertheless, he did not show up for work. Avalotis stopped paying him and deemed his employment abandoned.
Mr. Papageorgiou sought temporary total disability benefits beginning the day after his injury. Avalotis opposed, arguing he was ineligible because he refused light-duty work. A district hearing officer for the state’s Industrial Commission granted TTD from June 28, 2018, based on Avalotis’ payment of wages in lieu of TTD benefits. A staff hearing officer for the commission, however, denied TTD after that date, concluding that Mr. Papageorgiou had voluntarily abandoned his job by rejecting the suitable position.
After the Industrial Commission declined further review, Mr. Papageorgiou asked the 10th District Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus granting TTD or ordering a new hearing. The appellate court declined his request.
The appellate court emphasized that Ohio law bars payment of TTD during any period in which work within an employee’s physical capabilities “is made available by the employer or another employer.” Avalotis made such work available, the court said, and both physicians — including Mr. Papageorgiou’s treating doctor — confirmed that the job fell within his medical restrictions. His failure to report constituted a refusal of suitable employment.
Because that evidence supported the commission’s conclusion, the court found no abuse of discretion.
The Supreme Court rejected Mr. Papageorgiou’s argument that the staff hearing officer should have determined whether Avalotis made the offer in good faith. The court held that he had not properly raised the issue of employer good faith during the administrative process and, in any event, had not offered a meaningful argument or evidence on appeal showing bad faith. His only claim — that the offer contained a single stated restriction — was characterized by the court as a challenge to whether the job was “suitable,” not an indication of bad faith.
The court further noted that the hearing officer’s reference to “voluntary abandonment” was not central to the outcome. The core rationale, the court said, was that Avalotis provided work that met Mr. Papageorgiou’s physical restrictions and he refused it; therefore he was not entitled to TTD benefits.
The state high court rejected Mr. Papageorgiou’s suggestion that the job was “legally deficient” because it did not set forth the physical requirements for the light-duty position, noting that he cited no authority to support that contention.
WorkCompCentral is a sister publication of Business Insurance. More stories here.