State ex rel. Jackson Tube Serv., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 1573
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Chad M. Thompson, an industrial electrician for Jackson Tube Service, was seriously injured when a strap broke and a flywheel fell while he was installing it.
- Thompson required working under a suspended load; Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-15(D) forbids requiring employees to work or pass under suspended loads.
- Thompson applied for and the Industrial Commission (via a staff hearing officer) granted an additional award for violation of a specific safety requirement (VSSR), relying in part on Thompson's testimony that a manufacturer-offered fixture could have been used as an alternative.
- Jackson Tube conceded the employee worked under a suspended load but argued compliance was impossible and moved for rehearing, submitting an affidavit from its maintenance manager claiming the manufacturer had no such fixture and proposing a difficult alternate method.
- The commission denied rehearing, finding relator failed to show an obvious mistake of fact or law; Jackson Tube sought mandamus relief in the court of appeals to overturn the VSSR finding.
- The court denied mandamus, concluding Jackson Tube failed to prove it was impossible to avoid placing the employee under the suspended load and that the commission's factual credibility determinations were supported by evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relator has a clear legal right to vacate the commission's VSSR finding | Jackson Tube: VSSR improper because compliance was impossible; manufacturer has no fixture | Commission/Thompson: SHO reasonably credited claimant's testimony that an alternative fixture existed; relator failed to prove impossibility | Denied — commission's factual finding supported by evidence; relator did not meet burden to show impossibility |
| Whether the commission committed an obvious mistake of fact or law by relying on claimant's testimony | Jackson Tube: claimant's testimony about a manufacturer fixture was false; reliance was an obvious mistake | Thompson: testimony was credible and relator presented no contrary evidence at hearing; relator's post-hearing affidavit is not superior | Denied — credibility determinations are within commission's discretion and not an obvious mistake |
| Whether post-hearing affidavit from relator's employee proves relator's impossibility defense | Jackson Tube: affidavit shows manufacturer denied existence of fixture and alternate methods were impractical | Commission: affidavit is post-hearing, hearsay about third-party conversation, and does not conclusively prove impossibility | Denied — affidavit did not conclusively establish impossibility or overcome commission's findings |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate where record contains some evidence supporting the commission | Jackson Tube: seeks writ because commission abused its discretion | Commission/Thompson: some evidence supports the order; mandamus inappropriate | Denied — presence of some evidence defeats mandamus; no abuse of discretion shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (1983) (mandamus requirements)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (mandamus as remedy from commission determinations)
- State ex rel. Elliott v. Indus. Comm., 26 Ohio St.3d 76 (1986) (writ improper if record contains some evidence)
- State ex rel. Lewis v. Diamond Foundry Co., 29 Ohio St.3d 56 (1987) (commission credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- State ex rel. Teece v. Indus. Comm., 68 Ohio St.2d 165 (1981) (weight and credibility are for the commission)
- State ex rel. Trydle v. Indus. Comm., 32 Ohio St.2d 257 (1972) (elements required to establish a VSSR)
- State ex rel. Harris v. Indus. Comm., 12 Ohio St.3d 152 (1984) (impossibility defense to VSSR)
- State ex rel. Burton v. Indus. Comm., 46 Ohio St.3d 170 (1989) (VSSR strict construction against applicability)