State ex rel. Ohio Paperboard v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)
152 Ohio St. 3d 155
| Ohio | 2017Background
- Ohio Paperboard (OP) operates a paper mill with a power-driven conveyor that transports 900-lb bales into a pulper; an overhead saw severs bailing wire that sometimes wraps around conveyor chains and sprockets.
- Weekly preventive maintenance requires mechanics to shut down, lock-out/tag-out, and remove guards to clear wrapped wire; on the accident day Ruckman (a maintenance mechanic) and a coworker followed that protocol initially.
- While the conveyor was shut down and a guard removed, Ruckman re-energized the conveyor (unlocking it and hitting the start) and reached into a pinch point to remove wire; his hand was crushed and later amputated and replanted.
- Ruckman’s workers’ compensation claim was allowed for serious injury; he applied for an additional VSSR (violation of specific safety requirement) award claiming OP violated Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-05(C)(2), (C)(4), and (D)(1) (guards and emergency-stop/disengage means).
- The Industrial Commission awarded a 40% VSSR penalty, finding OP violated the SSRs and that those violations were proximate cause; OP sought mandamus review, arguing (inter alia) that the SSRs did not apply during locked-out maintenance and that Ruckman’s failure to follow lock-out/tag-out was the proximate cause.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the commission and court of appeals, granting mandamus to vacate the VSSR award and ordering denial of the application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ruckman) | Defendant's Argument (OP) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ruckman was an "operator" under the SSR definitions | Ruckman was assigned to work on the conveyor (maintenance) and thus qualifies as an operator | Ruckman was a mechanic performing maintenance while machine was deenergized; SSRs target operators during normal operation | Court: Commission reasonably found Ruckman was an "operator" because he was assigned to work at the equipment; this finding had evidentiary support |
| Whether SSRs applied when the machine was shut down for maintenance | SSRs should apply because hazard (pinch point) existed and injured an employee | SSRs protect during operation; when machine is deenergized and guarded protocol is used, SSRs do not apply to inaccessible points during maintenance | Court: SSRs did not apply to pinch point accessible only during deenergized maintenance; a machine accessible only when stopped is not "during the course of operation" |
| Whether OP complied with SSRs (guards and disengage means) | OP failed to provide necessary guards/emergency-stop reachable at the point of contact | OP provided guards and emergency-stop means for normal operations and required lock-out/tag-out during maintenance | Court: Record shows OP complied with SSRs during normal operation; compliance during maintenance via lock-out/tag-out satisfied SSRs |
| Whether Ruckman’s failure to follow company safety protocol bars VSSR award (proximate cause) | Ruckman argued employer's lack of guarding and accessible stop were proximate causes | OP argued Ruckman’s unilateral negligence (removing lock/energizing and reaching into pinch point) was proximate cause, not employer noncompliance | Court: Commission abused discretion by rejecting OP’s proximate-cause argument; Ruckman’s failure to follow lock-out/tag-out was proximate cause, so VSSR award was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18 (agency findings supported if record contains some evidence)
- State ex rel. Ford v. Indus. Comm., 67 Ohio St.3d 121 (a machine accessible only when stopped is not accessible "during the course of operation")
- State ex rel. Quality Tower Serv., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 88 Ohio St.3d 190 (VSSR focuses on whether employer complied with SSRs)
- State ex rel. Frank Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 37 Ohio St.3d 162 (only employer-controlled acts may form the basis for VSSR relief)