State Ex Rel. Glunt Industries, Inc. v. Industrial Commission, 969 N.E.2d 252

Hamrick alleges Glunt violated a specific safety requirement (VSSR) by failing to provide protective equipment; he was injured investigating a plantwide power failure.
The main breaker cabinet housed two voltage sections (right 440/480V; left 4,160V) and explosive risk existed.
Hamrick, unprotected, was injured when the cabinet exploded; it is disputed whether he opened the left, high-voltage panel.
Glunt argued the cabinet was not “equipment to be worked on” due to company policy prohibiting work on >440/480V.
The SHO concluded 4123:1-5-23(A) applied and Glunt failed to provide PPE, proximate cause found; the court of appeals denied mandamus.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirming the holding held that the cabinet was equipment to be worked on and PPE was required regardless of requests.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does 4123:1-5-23(A) apply to the main breaker cabinet?	Hamrick contends yes; PPE required.	Glunt claims no because cabinet not equipment to be worked on.	Yes, cabinet is equipment to be worked on and PPE required.
Was Glunt’s failure to provide PPE a violation regardless of employee requests?	Glunt’s duty to provide PPE is non-discretionary.	PPE not required unless requested; defense of unilateral claimant negligence.	Noncompliance established; duty not contingent on request.
Did lack of PPE proximately cause Hamrick’s injury?	Absence of PPE proximate cause.	Injury could be independent of PPE due to employee actions.	Proximate cause found; lack of PPE contributed to injury.

State ex rel. Burton v. Indus. Comm., 46 Ohio St.3d 170 (Ohio 1989) (strict construction of VSSR; penalties favor employer)
State ex rel. Frank Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 37 Ohio St.3d 162 (Ohio 1988) (fully compliant employer defeats claimant negligence defense)
Glunt v. Indus. Comm., - (-) (-)