In State ex rel. B.O.C. Group v. Indus. Comm. (1991), 58 Ohio St. 3d 199, 569 N.E.2d 496, the claimant sustained an industrial injury in August 1981, and filed an application for workers' compensation. Claimant continued to work for B.O.C. Group until she was laid off with no possibility of being recalled on October 13, 1981. In February 1986, claimant requested TTD for two separate periods: March 5 to September 30, 1984 and July 11 to July 28, 1985. Said request was granted. Thereafter, in November 1986, claimant sought TTD from July 30, 1985 to present, and again the commission allowed her claim from July 30, 1985 to April 10, 1987. On appeal to this court, relator argued claimant was not entitled to TTD because she was laid off from her employment. The Court concluded: "The decision to lay off claimant was one initiated solely by the employer and over which the claimant had no control. Therefore, the fact that claimant was laid off does not preclude her from receiving temporary total disability compensation." State ex rel. B.O.C. Group v. Indus. Comm. (Sept. 21, 1989), 10th Dist. No. 88AP-983, 1989 Ohio App. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio, B.O.C. Group argued TTD compensation was improper because the claimant's departure from employment was not injury-related. The court stated such assertion was "incorrect" and that "an employer-initiated departure is still considered involuntary as a general rule." B.O.C. Group, 58 Ohio St.3d 199, 202, 569 N.E.2d 496. The court went on to state "the lack of a causal connection between termination and injury has no bearing where the employer has laid off the claimant." Id. Under B.O.C. Group, claimant's layoff here would not preclude his receipt of TTD compensation. If claimant had voluntarily abandoned his employment with Belterra after reentering the workforce and becoming eligible for TTD, then a different outcome may result.