State ex rel. Shotts v. Austin Powder Co.

Claimant asserts that he can do no work and offers the difference between pre-injury and post-injury earnings as proof of IEC. The commission was unpersuaded by claimant’s position, as are we.

The commission’s order contains several reasons for denying IEC compensation, any of which alone could sustain its decision. Evidence of decreased wages, for example, does not establish an impaired earning capacity, which “connotes not what claimant did earn, but what he or she could have earned.” (Emphasis sic.) State ex rel. Eaton Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 180, 183-184, 610 N.E.2d…