State ex rel. Precision Steel Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)
145 Ohio St. 3d 76
Ohio2015Background
- Myers, a Precision Steel employee, was injured when an 8,000‑lb magnet and a 1,200‑lb metal piece fell from a crane hook lacking a safety latch, resulting in amputation of his left hand.
- Myers received regular workers’ compensation benefits and later sought an additional VSSR (violation of a specific safety requirement) award, alleging violations of Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-14(G)(1) and 4123:1-5-15(B).
- The Industrial Commission and a staff hearing officer found Precision Steel violated both rules: (1) 4123:1-5-14(G)(1) (defective crane safety devices or load‑carrying equipment must be repaired/replaced) and (2) 4123:1-5-15(B) (equipment must be removed from service if defective).
- The Tenth District Court of Appeals partially granted relief, directing the commission to reconsider whether the bottom hook constituted load‑carrying equipment under 4123:1-5-14(G)(1) but left the 4123:1-5-15(B) finding intact.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted mandamus relief, holding neither administrative rule specifically put Precision Steel on notice that a missing hook latch was a regulated ‘‘safety device’’ or ‘‘equipment’’ for VSSR purposes, and ordered the commission to vacate the VSSR award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Myers) | Defendant's Argument (Precision Steel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-14(G)(1) set a specific safety requirement covering a missing latch on the crane hook | The crane hook latch was a safety device/load‑carrying equipment and failure to repair/replace violated the rule | The rule does not specifically require a latch; undefined terms do not put employer on notice | Court: No — the rule did not plainly apprise employer that a hook latch was a ‘‘safety device’’ or ‘‘load‑carrying equipment’’; commission abused discretion |
| Whether Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-15(B) required removal from service because a hook latch was missing | Missing latch rendered equipment defective and should have been removed from service | Rule’s term ‘‘equipment’’ is undefined and does not specifically include a hook latch; no notice | Court: No — the rule did not clearly put employer on notice that a latch was ‘‘equipment’’; commission abused discretion |
| Standard of review: whether the commission’s rule interpretation should be upheld | Myers: commission’s interpretation entitled to deference | Precision Steel: deference only where rule gives specific notice; strict construction for penalty rules | Court: Deference limited; may not add language to rule; specific safety requirements must be strictly construed in favor of employer |
| Remedy: whether mandamus relief was appropriate | Myers: award was proper and should stand | Precision Steel: mandamus should vacate VSSR award | Court: Writ granted — commission must vacate its VSSR order and issue new order denying Myers’s VSSR claim |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Newman v. Indus. Comm., 77 Ohio St.3d 271 (VSSR award is separate from ordinary compensation)
- State ex rel. Supreme Bumpers, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 98 Ohio St.3d 134 (standard elements for a VSSR award)
- State ex rel. G & S Metal Prods., Inc. v. Moore, 79 Ohio St.3d 471 (specific safety requirements must forewarn employer)
- State ex rel. Lamp v. J.A. Croson Co., 75 Ohio St.3d 77 (court will not defer where commission’s interpretation adds language to rule)
- State ex rel. Fiber‑Lite Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 36 Ohio St.3d 202 (findings supported by some evidence are binding)
- State ex rel. Burton v. Indus. Comm., 46 Ohio St.3d 170 (specific safety requirements construed strictly in favor of employer)