State ex rel. Benjamin Steel Co., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 8214
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Roosevelt Harris, a Benjamin Steel warehouseman, was injured on May 7, 2012 when stacked bundles of steel fell on his legs, resulting in bilateral amputations; his workers' compensation claim was allowed.
- Harris filed a VSSR (violation of a specific safety requirement) application alleging violations of Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-02(C)(1) and (5) (rules on temporary storage/stacking of materials).
- The BWC Safety Violations Investigation Unit investigated and compiled witness and claimant statements; no eyewitness described the immediate cause beyond the stacked tubing tipping.
- A Staff Hearing Officer (SHO) found Ohio Adm.Code chapter 4123:1-3 (construction safety) applied and awarded a VSSR against Benjamin Steel, reasoning the company processed steel for construction customers and its employees handled and prepared that steel for shipment.
- Benjamin Steel sought rehearing (denied) and filed this mandamus action, arguing the construction-safety rules do not apply because Benjamin Steel is not principally in the construction business and no construction activity was occurring at the facility when Harris was injured.
- The magistrate and the Court of Appeals concluded the commission abused its discretion by applying the construction-safety rules here and granted the writ ordering the commission to vacate the SHO’s VSSR award and deny the application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Benjamin Steel or Harris was engaged in "construction activity" under Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-01(A) so that the construction-safety rules apply | Benjamin Steel: not engaged in construction as principal business; no construction site/activity at Mansfield on accident date, so rules do not apply | Harris/SHO: Benjamin Steel fabricates and supplies steel used in construction; employees process, stack, and prepare that material, so the construction code governs | Court: Sho abused discretion; applying the construction scope here impermissibly expands rule; no evidence Benjamin Steel/Harris were engaged in construction activity under the scope provision; VSSR overturned |
| Whether Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-02(C)(1) & (5) (stacking/blocking rules) apply to this workplace incident | Harris: stacking rules apply because the injury was caused by fallen/tilting cylindrical stock | Benjamin Steel: rules apply to construction activity per scope; because scope is not met, specific rules don't apply | Court: because scope provision not satisfied, the cited specific safety rules cannot be applied; award vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Holdosh v. Industrial Commission, 149 Ohio St. 179 (examines requirement that a specific safety rule plainly apprise employer of obligations)
- State ex rel. Trydle v. Industrial Commission, 32 Ohio St.2d 257 (same principle regarding specificity of safety rules)
- State ex rel. Burton v. Industrial Commission, 46 Ohio St.3d 170 (specific safety requirements construed in employer's favor)
- State ex rel. Harris v. Industrial Commission, 12 Ohio St.3d 152 (deference to commission’s rule interpretation except where it yields patently illogical results)
- State ex rel. Lamp v. J.A. Croson Co., 75 Ohio St.3d 77 (construction-safety scope cannot be rewritten to exclude activities not textually excluded; preparatory/transportation activities may fall within scope)
- State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18 (mandamus and "some evidence" standard for commission decisions)
- State ex rel. Elliott v. Industrial Commission, 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (same evidentiary standard)
- State ex rel. Devore Roofing & Painting v. Industrial Commission, 101 Ohio St.3d 66 (deference to commission’s common-sense interpretations, but not where interpretation conflicts with rule text)