State ex rel. Thompson Elec., L.L.C. v. Indus. Comm.
2017 Ohio 7611
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On May 25, 2011 Thomas R. Otto (decedent), a foreman for Thompson Electric (relator), was fatally electrocuted when a digger derrick boom energized by a 7,200V distribution line arced to the truck; the boom never touched the wire.
- AEP had moved the distribution conductor onto a "hot arm" and was responsible, relator asserts, for covering the conductor with line hose; AEP was delayed and the conductor remained uncovered.
- Thompson Electric contended it had designated Otto as signalman and relied on AEP to guard the conductor; claimants' expert and investigative reports said the truck was not grounded and the conductor was not guarded.
- Claimants (Otto’s spouse and child) obtained an award from an Industrial Commission staff hearing officer (SHO) finding a Violation of a Specific Safety Requirement (VSSR) under Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-23(D) and awarding a 15% additional award.
- Relator sought rehearing (denied) and filed this mandamus action arguing the SHO’s order failed to comply with State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial Commission by not explaining or identifying the specific evidence supporting the finding that relator failed to "assure that the conductor was guarded from accidental contact" (subsection (D)(3)).
- The court (Tenth District) adopted the magistrate’s recommendation: SHO’s order was conclusory and omitted addressing relator’s defense (reliance on AEP), so the SHO’s order violated Noll; court granted mandamus directing the commission to vacate the June 3, 2015 order and enter a new order explaining the evidence and reasoning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Claimants/Otto) | Defendant's Argument (Thompson Elec.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SHO complied with Noll by identifying evidence and explaining reasoning for finding a VSSR under O.A.C. 4123:1-5-23(D)(3) | SHO relied on SVIU report, affidavits, and hearing testimony and that is sufficient to support the finding | SHO failed to address relator's specific defense (reliance on AEP to guard conductor); order is conclusory | Court: SHO order did not satisfy Noll—it failed to specifically state evidence and reasoning regarding the (D)(3) issue; vacate and remand for a Noll-compliant order |
| Whether relator complied with O.A.C. 4123:1-5-23(D)(3) (assure conductor guarded and designate signalman) | Claimants: relator failed all four disjunctive options including (D)(3); proximate cause of death | Relator: Otto was the designated signalman and relator reasonably relied on AEP to guard the conductor, so (D)(3) was satisfied | Court: Declined to decide merits—remanded because commission must first address relator's reliance defense and explain its factual reasoning per Noll |
| Whether unilateral negligence by the injured worker bars VSSR | Claimants: employer violation protects against injured worker’s negligence; VSSR protects employees from their own negligence | Relator: decedent's unilateral negligence (not waiting, not using grounding device, not wearing overshoes) was proximate cause and SHO erred in rejecting that defense | Court: Did not resolve on merits; Noll defect prevented meaningful review of how SHO treated unilateral-negligence defense |
| Whether the court may search record for "some evidence" to uphold SHO when order lacks specific findings | Claimants: general citation to evidence is adequate | Relator: Noll forbids courts from searching the file; SHO must identify evidence and explain reasoning so court can review | Held: Court confirmed Noll prohibits searching the file for some evidence; SHO must state evidence relied upon and reasoning; order here insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Noll v. Industrial Commission, 57 Ohio St.3d 203 (1991) (commission orders must state evidence relied upon and briefly explain reasoning to permit meaningful review)
- State ex rel. Buttolph v. General Motors Corp., 79 Ohio St.3d 73 (1997) (purpose of Noll explanatory requirement is to enable meaningful review)
- State ex rel. Colterman v. St. Mary's Foundry, 48 Ohio St.3d 42 (1989) (VSSR exists to protect employees from their own negligence)
- State ex rel. Martin Painting & Coating Co. v. Industrial Commission, 78 Ohio St.3d 333 (1997) (commission’s interpretation of its rules must be reasonable; strict construction applies to VSSR)
- State ex rel. Lamp v. J.A. Croson Co., 75 Ohio St.3d 77 (1996) (commission may not effectively rewrite its safety rules when interpreting them)
- State ex rel. Burton v. Industrial Commission, 46 Ohio St.3d 170 (1989) (VSSR penal and must be strictly construed)
- State ex rel. Roberts v. Industrial Commission, 10 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (factual determinations and rule interpretation are within commission's jurisdiction; mandamus relief available for abuse)
- State ex rel. Cox v. Industrial Commission, 67 Ohio St.2d 235 (1981) (reviewing court cannot search commission file for some evidence to support an unexplained order)