Ohio Supreme Court: WC Disability Benefits Cannot Be Denied Because of Employee Negligence
This case caused quite a stir a while back. The Ohio Supreme Court determined last December that a 16-year-old KFC worker should be denied workers' compensation disability benefits after he was badly burned while cleaning a cooker at work. The teenager had ignored repeated warnings from his employer not to boil water in the cooker in order to clean it. The majority held that by ignoring his employer's warnings he had "voluntarily abandoned his employment" and that he should be denied disability benefits as a result. To critics and to the dissenting judges, however, the majority decision was inconsistent with a basic tenet of workers' compensation law, i.e., that it's supposed to be a "no-fault" system.
But now the Ohio court has reversed itself in this opinion issued on 9/27/2007, holding on motion for reconsideration that Ohio's "voluntary abandonment of employment" doctrine should be applied only to post-accident, not to pre-accident conduct. The concurring opinion by Judge Pfeifer is amusing. He ridicules the remaining dissenting judges as "Chicken Littles" who "predict a workplace apocalypse, where employees bob for drumsticks in hot oil, ultimately resulting in an increase in the price of a bucket of 'extra crispy.'"
In Florida, I suspect that this issue would be governed by §440.09(5), Fla. Stat., which provides not for a complete denial of compensation, but for a 25% reduction in compensation benefits in cases where a worker is injured because of his "knowing refusal" to use a "safety appliance provided by the employer" or by his refusal to "observe a safety rule required by statute."
