2014 Ohio 5330
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Claimant (Albu), a weld technician trainee for Camaco, was struck in the head by a transfer arm of a Wayne Trail 2 bending machine while troubleshooting a jam inside a fenced work cell and sustained serious injuries.
- The cell had two safety-interlocked doors that de-energized the robot and bender when opened; employees routinely entered the cell through a large exit opening (part of the fence) that did not de-energize the equipment.
- Claimant entered through that exit opening with the robot powered and used a teach pendant; the transfer arm struck him during adjustment.
- Claimant sought an additional award for violation of a specific safety requirement (VSSR) under Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-17(G) (head protection).
- The first SHO denied the VSSR because claimant bypassed safety doors; on rehearing a second SHO (relying on expert Vernon Mangold) found some evidence that the system/PLC design allowed the transfer arm to move at full speed even in robot teach mode, so the injury would have occurred even if claimant had used the interlocked door—granting a 35% award.
- Camaco petitioned for mandamus arguing (1) the injury was caused by a latent design/manufacturing defect (so Camaco lacked notice) and/or (2) claimant knowingly bypassed safety devices; the court adopted the magistrate’s decision denying the writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Camaco) | Defendant's Argument (Albu/Commission) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the commission abused its discretion in awarding a VSSR when evidence showed claimant bypassed the interlocked doors | Camaco: VSSR improper because claimant intentionally circumvented safety interlocks by entering through the exit opening | Albu/Commission: Even if bypass occurred, expert Mangold showed the transfer arm could move at full speed in teach mode such that the injury would have occurred regardless | Court: Denied mandamus; Mangold’s report provided some evidence to support the VSSR award |
| Whether a latent/hidden design or manufacturing defect (unknown to Camaco) defeats VSSR liability | Camaco: System had latent defect (emergency-stop/PLC design) and Camaco lacked notice, so it cannot be held liable | Albu/Commission: Commission relied on expert evidence that system design created hazard and employer should have provided head protection | Court: Camaco waived the latent-defect argument by not raising it before the commission; not entitled to plain-error relief |
| Whether relator waived new arguments by failing to raise them administratively | Camaco: N/A (argues merits) | Commission: Issues not raised below cannot be raised first in mandamus | Court: Waiver applies; arguments not raised before the commission are forfeited |
| Whether plain error review requires reversal despite waiver | Camaco: Even if waived, plain error should apply because manifest injustice resulted from imposing VSSR for a latent defect | Commission: Plain-error standard in civil cases is rarely applied and not met here | Court: Plain-error not warranted; no exceptional circumstances and no authority showing plain-error used to overturn VSSR awards |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v. Foreman, 79 Ohio St.3d 78 (explains waiver for issues not raised below)
- State ex rel. M.T.D. Prods., Inc. v. Stebbins, 43 Ohio St.2d 114 (commission abused discretion where safety gate complied and single failure insufficient for VSSR; claimant may not raise new arguments on appeal)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (plain-error doctrine in civil cases is narrowly applied)
- State ex rel. Trydle v. Indus. Comm., 32 Ohio St.2d 257 (elements required for VSSR award)
- State ex rel. Engle v. Indus. Comm., 142 Ohio St. 425 (procedure and rule cited for awarding additional compensation under VSSR framework)
- State ex rel. Burton v. Indus. Comm., 46 Ohio St.3d 170 (strict construction of VSSR penalties and interpretation guidance)