State ex rel. Penwell v. Industrial Commission
142 Ohio St. 3d 114
| Ohio | 2015Background
- Penwell, ABB employee, injured May 18, 2007 while operating a hydraulic press with a pullback restraint system; workers’ compensation claim allowed for severe hand injuries and psychological effects.
- Press No. 885 used a pullback restraint with two cables and safety bars; ABB held monthly safety meetings warning not to rely solely on pullbacks because devices can fail.
- Before the injury, Coe operated the same machine for over two hours and found no problems; Payne adjusted the cables for Penwell and observed nothing unusual.
- Penwell unhooked the wrist restraints to perform a QC inspection, then rehooked them and continued operating; the ram injured her left hand.
- ABB’s post-accident investigation found a bent left-side safety bar weld and possible cable-wrapping around the bar; first documented malfunction in 38 years; no prior pullback failures reported.
- Penwell sought a VSSR award; the SHO found the accident a one-time malfunction, denied the VSSR claim, mandamus filed in the Tenth District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the one-time malfunction defense applies | ABB warned not to rely solely on pullbacks; evidence of forewarning forecloses SSR violation. | There was no prior malfunction; SSR complied; one-time malfunction defense should apply. | Yes; one-time malfunction defense applied; no SSR violation. |
| Whether a set-up person was required during quality-control | Set-up supervision required for rehooking after QC. | No set-up person required; initial adjustment suffices and rule does not mandate supervision. | Not required; SSI/SSR did not mandate a set-up person for QC unhooking. |
| Whether the pullback system constitutes an acceptable guard under the SSR | Questioned adequacy of pullback and whether other safeguards were necessary. | Pullback guard is an acceptable mandated device under Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-ll(E)(4). | Pullback guard is acceptable; no SSR violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Supreme Bumpers, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 98 Ohio St.3d 134 (2002) (SSR awards require resolving reasonable doubts in employer’s favor; not absolute liability)
- Gentzler Tool & Die Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 18 Ohio St.3d 103 (1985) (one-time malfunction defense recognized in safety-device cases)
- Taylor v. Indus. Comm., 70 Ohio St.3d 445 (1994) (recognition of one-time malfunction defense; forewarning considerations)
- State ex rel. Jeep Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 42 Ohio St.3d 83 (1989) (safety-device failure does not create strict liability for VSSR awards)
- State ex rel. Frank Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 37 Ohio St.3d 162 (1988) (no duty of constant surveillance; supervision standards depend on SSR)
- State ex rel. Richmond v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 157 (2014) (resolve reasonable doubts in employer’s favor in VSSR context)
- State ex rel. Trydle v. Indus. Comm., 32 Ohio St.2d 257 (1969) (establishes standards for evaluating SSR adherence)
- M.T.D. Prods., Inc. v. Stebbins, 43 Ohio St.2d 114 (1975) (recognizes the one-time malfunction concept in safety-device cases)