State ex rel. 31, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)
96 N.E.3d 246
Ohio2017Background
- 31, Inc. operates a rubber calender; employee Duane Ashworth was injured when his hand was pulled into the space between calender rolls.
- Ashworth’s workers’ compensation claim for hand injuries was allowed; he also sought an additional VSSR (violation of a specific safety requirement) award alleging a violation of the nip-point rule in Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-11(D)(10)(a).
- The nip-point rule generally requires protections for employees exposed to contact with nip points; it contains an exception for "machinery covered expressly by requirements contained in other codes of specific requirements."
- Chapter 4123:1-13 (rubber and plastics) includes a specific calender rule, Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-13-03, requiring either safety trip cords or placement preventing contact with roll bites.
- The Industrial Commission ultimately granted the VSSR award based on the nip-point rule; the Tenth District denied mandamus relief to 31. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding the nip-point rule did not apply because calenders are expressly covered by 4123:1-13-03.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the nip-point rule in 4123:1-5-11(D)(10)(a) applies to calenders | 31: the rule’s exception applies because calenders are expressly regulated by 4123:1-13-03 | Commission/Ashworth: workshop/factory rules supplement industry rules; both apply (Hartco) | Court held the nip-point rule did not apply because 4123:1-13-03 expressly covers calenders; VSSR award vacated |
| Whether the commission abused its discretion in granting rehearing and awarding VSSR | 31: rehearing and award were contrary to law and lacking some evidence | Commission: its interpretation of its rules is entitled to deference; alternative protections were inadequate | Court found commission’s interpretation unreasonable here and reversed; mandamus granted |
| Proper construction of specific safety requirements when overlapping rules exist | 31: specific industry rule supplants the general nip-point rule under the exception | Commission: general workshop rules supplement, not supplant, industry rules; Hartco supports this | Court construed specific VSSR strictly for employer’s benefit and resolved doubt in favor of employer; applied the industry rule |
| Standard of review for commission’s interpretation of its rules | 31: court should apply legal review to determine applicability of rule | Commission: courts must defer unless commission’s construction is an abuse of discretion | Court applied deference but found commission’s failure to apply the controlling industry rule was an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Hartco, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 38 Ohio St.3d 181 (1988) (discusses interplay of general workshop rules and rubber-industry rules)
- State ex rel. Burton v. Indus. Comm., 46 Ohio St.3d 170 (1989) (VSSR must be strictly construed and doubts resolved for employer)
- State ex rel. Richmond v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 157 (2014) (courts defer to commission’s reasonable interpretation of its rules)
- State ex rel. Internatl. Truck & Engine Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 122 Ohio St.3d 428 (2009) (interpretation of a specific safety requirement lies with the commission)
- State ex rel. M.T.D. Prods., Inc. v. Stebbins, 43 Ohio St.2d 114 (1975) (mandamus available when relator shows clear legal right to relief)