The opinion
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Justine Michael, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.
The State ex rel. Crisp, Appellant, v. Industrial
Commission of Ohio et al., Appellees.
[Cite as State ex rel. Crisp v. Indus. Comm. (1992),
Ohio St.3d .]
Workers' compensation -- Claimant cannot relitigate an issue at
a later date that was conclusively decided in a prior
commission decision -- Issue is considered res judicata.
(No. 91-975 -- Submitted June 17, 1992 -- Decided
September 2, 1992.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No.
90AP-602.
Appellant-claimant, Willie Crisp, was injured on January
30, 1971, while in the course of and arising from his
employment with appellee LTV Steel Company. His claim was
allowed for "transverse fracture of neck of left femur;
comminuted intra-articular fracture of distal left radius and
transverse fracture of styloid process of left ulna" and
"aggravation of pre-existing arthritis of the lumbo-sacral
spine." Following an award of temporary total disability
compensation, claimant returned to work on November 7, 1971 and
continued working until his July 31, 1980 retirement. Among
the options available to departing employees were "early
retirement" and "disability retirement." Claimant chose
neither, selecting a "62/15 retirement" instead (sixty-two
years of age and fifteen years of service).
In November 1986, a commission district hearing officer
denied claimant's request for renewed temporary total
disability compensation, finding that "claimant voluntarily
removed himself from the work force when he retired in 1980
***." The Canton Regional Board of Review affirmed this order
and the commission refused further appeal. This determination
then became final.
In July 1987, claimant applied for permanent total
disability compensation. The commission denied the
application, finding, among other things, that claimant had
voluntarily retired.
Claimant then brought this action in mandamus in the Court
of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission
had abused its discretion by denying permanent total disability
compensation. The appellate court disagreed, holding that
"there is some evidence to support the finding of the
commission that [claimant] voluntarily removed himself from the
work force," and denied the writ.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of
right.
Schiavoni & Schiavoni Co., L.P.A., and Joseph Bush III,
for appellant.
Lee I. Fisher, Attorney General, Cordelia A. Glenn and
Gerald H. Waterman, for appellee Industrial Commission.
Baughman & Associates Co., L.P.A., R. Patrick Baughman and
Sandra Becher Sommers, for appellee LTV Steel Company.
Per Curiam. An employee-initiated retirement that is not
precipitated by industrial injury is considered "voluntary."
State ex rel. Rockwell Internatl. v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 40
Ohio St.3d 44, 531 N.E.2d 678. Voluntary retirement precludes
permanent total disability compensation. State ex rel.
Chrysler Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 193, 580
N.E.2d 1082. In this case, claimant's permanent total
disability denial was based on, among other things, voluntary
retirement. Claimant argues that there is no evidence to
support the commission's conclusion that he voluntarily
retired. Upon review, we reject claimant's belated attempt to
raise this argument.
Claimant seeks to relitigate an issue that was
conclusively decided in early 1987. Claimant ignores the fact
that the voluntary retirement issue was determined by a
district hearing officer in November 1986. The commission
ultimately affirmed that decision by an order mailed May 12,
1987, and the determination was not, thereafter, reversed. The
issue must, therefore, be considered res judicata. See
Whitehead v. Gen. Tel. Co. (1969), 20 Ohio St.2d 108, 49 O.O.2d
435, 254 N.E.2d 10.
Accordingly, the judgment of the appellate court is
affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, and
Resnick, JJ., concur.
H. Brown, J., not participating.