VSSR Cases: Miscellaneous (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

VSSR: Miscellaneous

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.

Advanced Metal Precision Products, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (11/1/06)

The term operating cycle used in former O.A.C. 4121:1-5-11 (currently in O.A.C. 4123:1-5-11) includes all operated-press activity, not just intentional activity.

Vote: 6-0, 1 concur in judgment only
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Avalotis Painting Co., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/14/01)

Commission did not abuse discretion in finding that a VSSR occurred where employer failed to rig lifeline and ordered worker to paint without lifeline.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Camaco, L.L.C., State ex rel. v. Albu (9/14/17)

Employer which lacked knowledge of latent defect cannot be liable for a VSSR.

Vote: 4-1, 2 concur in part and dissent in part
Opinion by: DeWine

Highfill, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (8/15/01)

VSSR must be awarded where employer failed to comply with provisions of safety code.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Jackson Tube Serv., Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/27/18)

“Impossibility” is an affirmative defense to a VSSR award where the employer establishes (1) compliance with the safety requirement was impossible, or would have prevented performance of work, and (2) there was no alternative method of protection.

Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: O’Donnell

Maghie & Savage, Inc., State ex rel. v. Nobel (4/1/98)

If safety code does not explicitly require an employer to provide two equivalent means of protection, employer is not required to provide duplicate protection.

Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: Justice Pfeifer

Penwell,
State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/19/15)

When a device
complies with the specific safety requirements the one-time malfunction of the device when the injury occurred does not, on its own, demonstrate violation of the safety regulation.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Ruscilli Constr. Co., Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (4/12/12)

Court cannot uphold order containing major mistakes in fact and law.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Scott Fetzer Co., Halex Div., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (4/22/98)

Injured worker who was actively involved in operating machine was entitled to protection of VSSR code, regardless of whether he was called an operator of the machine. VSSR claimant is only required to demonstrate that machine was not guarded and absence of guard caused injury.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Smith, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (5/16/03)

Commission did not abuse its discretion by making minimum VSSR award.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Thompson Bldg. Associates, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/16/98)

Commission properly explained cause of injury and therefore properly awarded VSSR.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

US Airways, Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (11/8/00)

Where injured worker’s supervisor provided affidavit supporting injured worker’s VSSR claim, affidavit was new and additional evidence which supported Commission decision to grant rehearing. However, because Commission’s order did not understandably explain decision, Commission must issue new order containing adequate explanation.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam