2018 Ohio 3
Ohio2018Background
- Timothy R. Roark, a Sunesis laborer, was working alone at the bottom of a 20-foot trench on July 31, 2005; one sloped side of the trench collapsed and he died from a skull fracture and asphyxia.
- The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation allowed a death claim; Roark’s dependents sought an additional award under Ohio’s Violation of Specific Safety Requirement (VSSR) process alleging violations of Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13 (trenches/excavations).
- Administrative proceedings produced three commission orders (2008, 2011, 2012); the commission found Sunesis violated multiple provisions of Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13 (D)(1),(D)(2),(E)(1),(E)(2),(E)(4) regarding shoring/sloping and accepted engineering requirements.
- Evidence relied upon included photographs and testimony of Sunesis employees describing a wet, unstable (Class C) soil condition, an inadequately sloped/unbraced fourth wall, lack of engineering design or compliance with OSHA/Sunesis standards, and placement of a steel plate that did not cover the sloped area.
- Sunesis sought mandamus relief in the Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals challenging the VSSR award on grounds including employee negligence, Table 13-1 slope application, and lack of proximate cause; the appellate court and Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the commission’s order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sunesis) | Defendant's Argument (Commission/Dependents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SSRs (Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13) applied and were violated | The employer contends it complied; any failure was not proved | Commission relied on employee testimony and photos showing >5 ft trench, unstable wet soil, and inadequate support/sloping | Held: Some evidence supports that SSRs applied and were violated |
| Whether the VSSR violations proximately caused Roark’s death | Sunesis argued lack of evidence linking the design to the collapse | Commission found the unsupported sloped wall caused the cave-in; testimony/photos corroborate proximate causation | Held: Some evidence supports proximate cause finding |
| Whether Table 13-1 slope specifications required specific angle findings | Sunesis argued commission failed to identify actual slope/angle per Table 13-1 | Commission and courts noted Table 13-1 excludes wet/groundwater conditions requiring "special treatment"; soil was found to be wet/Type C | Held: Table 13-1 did not control; commission reasonably treated wet ground as outside table guidelines |
| Whether unilateral negligence by Roark bars VSSR relief | Sunesis claimed Roark disobeyed instructions to stay inside casing and caused his own death | Commission asserted employee negligence irrelevant to VSSR unless claimant deliberately disabled or refused to use safety devices | Held: Unilateral negligence defense inapplicable; VSSR focuses on employer compliance |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. Comm., 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245 (court must state evidence relied on and explain reasoning)
- State ex rel. Armstrong Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 41 N.E.3d 1233 (standard: commission order upheld if some evidence supports it)
- State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 508 N.E.2d 936 (abuse of discretion occurs when no evidence supports commission order)
- State ex rel. Supreme Bumpers, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 781 N.E.2d 170 (elements of VSSR claim: SSR in effect, violation, proximate cause)
- State ex rel. Quality Tower Serv., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 724 N.E.2d 778 (VSSR inquiry centers on employer compliance, not employee negligence)
- State ex rel. Pressware Internatl., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 707 N.E.2d 935 (employee conduct bars VSSR only for deliberate circumvention or refusal to use safety devices)