In State ex rel. Walters v. Indus. Comm., Franklin App. No. 01AP-1043, 2002 Ohio 3236, some 17 months after Michael Walters sustained a crush injury to his foot in an industrial accident, his employer initiated an investigation into his employment application. The investigation revealed that Walters had failed to disclose several criminal convictions and incarcerations on his application. The employer then fired Walters for falsifying his application. The application form had informed Walters that giving false information would justify dismissal if discovered at a later time. The commission found, pursuant to Louisiana-Pacific, that Walters' termination constituted a voluntary abandonment of employment. However, the commission failed to address Walters' defense that the discharge was a pretext aimed at avoiding employer liability for the industrial injury. Adopting its magistrate's decision, this court, in Walters, issued a writ of mandamus ordering the commission to issue a new order that addresses the pertinent issues. Noting that a discharge motivated by the claimant's filing of a workers' compensation claim is not a voluntary abandonment of employment, the magistrate's decision adopted by this court states: When the employer (or other party) raises the argument of voluntary abandonment of employment under Louisiana-Pacific and supports it with evidence, then the commission must address the elements of proof in Louisiana-Pacific, and must deny TTD if the loss of wages was caused by claimant's voluntary choice. If the claimant argues and presents evidence, however, that his violation of the rule was a pretext for a discharge that was causally related to the industrial injury, then the commission must determine, regardless of proof that the employee knowingly violated a written work rule, whether the employer used the violation as a pretext for discharging him and would have continued to employ him but for the industrial injury and/or workers' compensation claim. Id. at P38. The claimant had falsified information on his employment application--he indicated that he had no criminal conditions when, in fact, he did. The employer did not discover the falsification until after the claimant sustained an injury and was disabled. Pursuant to Lousiana-Pacific, the commission found that claimant voluntarily abandoned his employment and was not entitled to TTD compensation. The Court granted a writ of mandamus because the commission did not adequately address the issue. Specifically, the commission had failed to focus on and determine the inferences that may reasonably be drawn from claimant's conduct as well as whether the termination was actually due to the injury and not the violation.