In State ex rel. Griffith v. Indus. Comm., 109 Ohio St.3d 479, 2006 Ohio 2992, 849 N.E.2d 28, while receiving TTD compensation, the claimant was involved in "work activity" that involved answering phones, running errands, driving cars, and putting away tools. In finding that this activity did not bar the receipt of TTD compensation, the Supreme Court of Ohio specifically noted that the claimant's ability to engage in work activity was relevant to the date after which the claimant had last actually worked only if the activity conflicted with the claimant's medical restrictions and his purported ability to return to his former job. In the Griffith case, the commission never made that finding.