HR's paper trail decides TTD after light‑duty refusal
Ohio Supreme Court upholds denial of temporary total disability (TTD) after worker refuses physician‑approved light‑duty job.
An Ohio worker who declined a light‑duty assignment after a workplace injury was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits. That is the Supreme Court of Ohio’s holding in State ex rel. Papageorgiou v. Avalotis Corporation, affirming the Tenth District’s denial of a writ of mandamus and upholding the Industrial Commission’s denial once a treating physician supported modified duties.
TTD is a wage‑replacement benefit paid while an injury prevents an employee from working and before maximum medical improvement. Under Ohio law, TTD is not payable when an employer makes work available within the employee’s medical limits.
The case began with a May 25, 2018 injury. While operating a sandblaster, the employee suffered neck and facial injuries and underwent surgery the same day. Avalotis continued paying wages from the date of injury. On June 5, 2018, one of the surgeons cleared the employee for light duty with a no‑heavy‑lifting restriction. Later, the treating physician, Dr. John L. Dunne, completed a MEDCO‑14 form restricting bending, squatting, kneeling, twisting, turning, climbing, and lifting more than 10 pounds, with limited overhead reaching.
On June 28, 2018, an Avalotis project manager delivered a written offer for light‑duty work and advised the employee to report the next day. The listed tasks included sorting hardware associated with rigging removal, general area housekeeping, crane/aerial lift spotter duties, assisting with traffic control, paint log recording, and managing general inventory. After reviewing the offer, Dr. Dunne wrote on July 2 that the employee could perform the duties if they were done on the ground, without prolonged overhead work, and without lifting more than approximately 20 pounds.
The employee did not report for the light‑duty position. Avalotis stopped wage payments and deemed the job abandoned. The employee then sought TTD. A district hearing officer granted TTD commencing after June 28, 2018, finding wages had been paid in lieu of TTD from May 25 through June 28 and noting the initial offer mentioned only the no‑heavy‑lifting restriction and not the other limits in the MEDCO‑14. On appeal, a staff hearing officer agreed wages were in lieu through June 28 but denied TTD after that date, finding the employee refused suitable work that Dr. Dunne said he could perform. The Commission declined further appeal, making the staff hearing officer’s order final. The Tenth District denied a mandamus petition. The Supreme Court affirmed.
The Supreme Court relied on R.C. 4123.56(A), which bars TTD payments when work within an employee’s physical capabilities is made available by the employer. Dr. Dunne’s July 2 letter was some evidence that the offered duties fit the employee’s restrictions, supporting the Commission’s conclusion that suitable work was available and that refusal defeated eligibility for TTD after June 28, 2018.
The court rejected several arguments. It found no abuse of discretion in the absence of an explicit “good‑faith” finding about the job offer because there was no indication the claimant raised lack of good faith during the administrative proceedings. It explained that the “voluntary abandonment” doctrine did not control the outcome; the decisive issue was refusal of available suitable employment under the statute. And it rejected the claim that the written offer was legally deficient for not specifying physical demands, noting that the regulatory requirement to list those demands applies when an employee first refuses an oral offer and the employer seeks to terminate ongoing TTD – circumstances not shown here.
For HR teams, the directive is practical: when a treating physician approves a light‑duty role that fits medical restrictions, promptly document the offer and track the response. If the employee declines, Ohio law permits denial of temporary total disability because suitable work was available. Any dispute about the offer’s good faith should be raised during the agency process; courts review what was preserved in the record.
