State Ex Rel. Richmond v. Industrial Commission
139 Ohio St. 3d 157
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Richmond, a billboard worker for Lamar, fell from a Werner hook ladder while working and sought a VSSR (violation of specific safety requirement) award in addition to workers’ compensation benefits.
- Employer provided a 14-foot Werner hook ladder, harness, and double lanyard; employees were trained to secure ladder hooks, use ladder stops, and remain tied off with a lanyard when moving or climbing the ladder.
- After the accident, employer found ladder stops intact; Richmond admitted he possibly mispositioned the ladder between an end stop and the billboard edge and that the lanyard was attached to a ladder rung, not the ladder’s tie-off point.
- The Industrial Commission’s staff hearing officer (SHO) denied the VSSR, reasoning that when a Werner hook ladder is properly engaged it becomes part of the structure and attaching the lanyard to the ladder satisfies Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-03(J)(1).
- Richmond challenged the denial in mandamus in the Tenth District, which upheld the SHO; Richmond appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Richmond's Argument | Lamar/Commission's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the commission improperly relied on OSHA/industry standards to interpret the Ohio SSR | SHO improperly imported an OSHA concept to deny VSSR; Ohio code governs billboards | Commission may consider industry/OSHA standards as interpretive aids but not as sole basis for VSSR | Commission may consider industry/OSHA standards as relevant to interpreting an SSR; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether a portable hook ladder can qualify as the "structure" to which harness/lanyard must be secured | Treating the ladder as "structure" is illogical and undermines SSR purpose | Testimony showed a properly engaged Werner hook ladder is fixed and can be part of the structure | When properly secured, a hook ladder can be considered part of the structure for SSR purposes |
| Whether Richmond's negligence precludes a VSSR award despite employer compliance | Employee negligence should not defeat VSSR unless claimant deliberately circumvented safety device or refused equipment | Employer complied with SSR; Richmond’s failure to position ladder and to check stops nullified safe compliance | Employee’s unilateral negligence that nullifies employer compliance can bar a VSSR award; here Richmond’s negligence precluded relief |
| Whether the SHO abused discretion in denying VSSR given the evidence | SHO ignored applicable Ohio SSRs and over-relied on external standards | SHO interpreted Ohio SSRs with industry evidence and found employer complied | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Supreme Bumpers, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 98 Ohio St.3d 134 (VSSR elements: SSR applicability, violation, proximate cause)
- State ex rel. G & S Metal Prods., Inc. v. Moore, 79 Ohio St.3d 471 (manufacturer/industry specs may inform SSR interpretation)
- State ex rel. Martin Painting & Coating Co. v. Indus. Comm., 78 Ohio St.3d 333 (SSR can require compliance with manufacturer specs to satisfy safety function)
- State ex rel. Pressware Internatl., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 85 Ohio St.3d 284 (employee conduct generally irrelevant to VSSR unless safety device was deliberately circumvented)
- State ex rel. Coffman v. Indus. Comm., 109 Ohio St.3d 298 (employee unilateral negligence can bar VSSR where employer complied but compliance was nullified)
- State ex rel. Quality Tower Serv., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 88 Ohio St.3d 190 (critical inquiry is whether employer complied with the SSR)