State ex rel. Zarbana Industries, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)
2021 Ohio 3669
| Ohio | 2021Background
- Jeremy Hayes suffered a crushing injury at work for Zarbana Industries, resulting in multiple finger amputations; his workers’ compensation claim included a VSSR (violation of specific safety requirements) application.
- The Industrial Commission estimated a VSSR award in the range of about $21,000–$70,000 (and later the SHO’s award approximated $40,000).
- Hayes and Zarbana submitted a joint settlement on the Commission’s form for $2,000, which by its terms required Commission approval before payment.
- The staff hearing officer (SHO) held a hearing, granted Hayes a VSSR award, and separately rejected the $2,000 settlement as “neither fair nor equitable.”
- Zarbana’s motion for reconsideration was denied; its common-pleas declaratory-judgment action was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the Tenth District denied mandamus relief; the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed and denied oral argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Zarbana) | Defendant's Argument (Commission / Hayes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ohio Adm.Code 4121-3-20(F) is invalid because it lacks statutory authority | The administrative rule has no basis in statute and is therefore a nullity | Commission relied on its regulatory authority and procedure; issue not raised below | Waived by Zarbana for failing to raise it below; Court did not consider it |
| Whether 4121-3-20(F)(1) limits SHO review to the settlement’s "form" (contract validity) only | "Form" means structural elements of a contract; SHO may only review form, not fairness | "Appropriate" includes substantive review; SHO may disapprove a settlement as not fair or equitable | Court held the rule’s plain language authorizes the SHO to approve or disapprove settlements as "appropriate," including fairness/equity review |
| Whether the Commission abused discretion by refusing to exercise continuing jurisdiction on reconsideration | SHO misapplied/overstepped rule, so Commission should have reopened under continuing jurisdiction | Because Zarbana’s underlying arguments fail, no basis for continuing jurisdiction | Court rejected the continuing-jurisdiction argument as derivative and affirmed denial |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Manor Care, Inc. v. Bur. of Workers’ Comp., 168 N.E.3d 434 (Ohio 2020) (mandamus standard: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy; burden is clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Richmond v. Indus. Comm., 10 N.E.3d 683 (Ohio 2014) (administrative rule language is given plain and ordinary meaning)
- State ex rel. Byington Builders, Ltd. v. Indus. Comm., 123 N.E.3d 908 (Ohio 2018) (VSSR award is a penalty to deter safety violations)
- State ex rel. Bailey v. Indus. Comm., 11 N.E.3d 1136 (Ohio 2014) (failure to raise issue below results in waiver)
- Nicholls v. Indus. Comm., 692 N.E.2d 188 (Ohio 1998) (standards for exercise of continuing jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. BF Goodrich Co. v. Indus. Comm., 69 N.E.3d 728 (Ohio 2016) (factors for granting oral argument in direct appeals)