In State ex rel. Roddy v. Indus. Comm., Franklin App. No. 04AP-930, 2006 Ohio 1185, Richard A. Roddy injured his foot on May 23, 2002 and underwent surgery. He received TTD compensation from May 24, 2002 through August 7, 2002, when he returned to restricted duty work. He suffered continuing foot pain and eventually obtained an additional allowance for "plantar nerve lesion." Roddy was then scheduled for surgery on May 13, 2003 to remove the neuroma. Two weeks before the surgery, on April 22, 2003, he was fired for an incident in which he started a tow motor without first checking to see whether it was in gear, causing it to lurch forward and strike a machine and a fellow employee. In Roddy, the commission, relying on Louisiana-Pacific, determined that Roddy had voluntarily abandoned his employment by violating the company's general safety-related rules. The Court noted that Roddy had previously been warned on multiple occasions by the employer for safety-related violations. Roddy sought a writ of mandamus from this court. Roddy argued that the commission abused its discretion by failing to address whether his firing was pretextual. The Court held that the commission's failure to address pretext was not an abuse of discretion. This court explained: Relator has argued in response only that he presented evidence before the commission establishing the chronology of his discharge and his pending TTD claim. While the timing is obviously suspicious, this evidence does not establish that pretext was argued before the commission, nor does anything else in the record so demonstrate. Id. at P8.