VSSR Cases: Interpreting Provisions (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

VSSR: Interpreting Provisions

Select the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site. For other issues, see our topic index to Ohio workers’ compensation decisions.

31, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/21/17)

Safety code containing provision exempting equipment covered by other safety codes does not apply to injury which occurred on machine which fell within the provisions of a different safety code.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Hoskins, State ex rel v. Indus. Comm. (6/23/99)

Commission’s interpretation of safety code relating to dropping structural steel was not unreasonable and therefore Commission properly denied VSSR.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Ohio Paperboard, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/28/17)

Employer complied with provisions of safety code applying to “the course of operation” when only unguarded access occurred after operations had stopped due to machine being without power.

Vote: 5-1, 1 concurs in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Precision Steel Servs., Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (11/24/15)

Industrial Commission cannot find a safety violation by construing the generic terms “equipment” and “device” in a safety rule to apply to a latch on a hook because the rule did provide the employer with sufficient notice of the safety requirement.

Vote: 4-2, 1 not participating
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Richmond, State ex rel v. Indus. Comm. (4/17/14)

Commission may look to industry safety standards when determining how to interpret a specific safety requirement, although it may not base a VSSR award on industry safety standards which have not been adopted as specific safety requirements.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Timken Co., State ex rel. v. Hammer (5/1/02)

If a safety code does not define a term, the Commission can determine the meaning of the term; safety code provision which sets forth acceptable changes to equipment puts employer on notice that changes which are not listed are unacceptable; and where driver testified that added equipment caused him to lose sight of decedent, Commission properly makes inference that driver would have tried to avoid decedent if he had seen decedent.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

United Foundries, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/3/04)

Common sense must be used in interpreting provisions of safety code; safety code cannot be interpreted in a way which would lead to an illogical result.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam