VSSR Cases: Specific Rules (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

VSSR: Specific Rules

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.

AK Steel Corp., State ex rel. v. Davis (11/12/09)

Rolls which perform more than one function do not meet definition of feed rolls in applicable safety code provision.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Burchfield, State ex rel. v. Printech Corp. (9/23/98)

Injured worker’s job did not involve clear foot hazard, therefore safety code provision relating to situations involving a clear foot hazard did not apply.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Burt, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (11/17/99)

Commission properly denied VSSR award because cited safety requirements did not require employer to protect against objects ejected from machine.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Carder, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/30/02)

Commission did not abuse its discretion by determining that a closed skylight was not an opening for purposes of VSSR decision.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Cleveland Steel Erectors Corp., State ex rel. v. Stewart (9/22/99)

Safety code required safety belts, lanyards or lifelines for specified operations, regardless of the height above ground of the worker. Therefore, Commission properly awarded VSSR to worker who was injured while working in a specified operation, regardless of the fact that he was only about ten feet above ground.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Colliver, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/17/99)

Grandfather clause provision of safety code applied only to installations or constructions. Therefore, the grandfather clause did not apply to a motor vehicle. However, Court found that evidence supported denial of VSSR claim even when the applicable code provision was applied because there was no evidence that removal of an emergency brake caused the accident and the Commission could determine that someone testing a vehicle was not an operator of the vehicle.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Justice Lundberg Stratton

Curtin, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/22/99)

Commission properly denied VSSR award where safety code only applied where worker was over 15 feet above ground and Commission determined that distance of fall was less than 15 feet above ground.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Devore Roofing & Painting, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/21/04)

Commission did not abuse its discretion when it found that employer committed VSSR because provision of safety code which covered construction equipment applied to scaffolding.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Justice Resnick

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

Commission did not abuse its discretion by denying VSSR award where it calculated height of worker based on height at time of injury (as opposed to highest possible point).

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Garza, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/6/02)

Operating cycle for purposes of determining whether the Employer committed a VSSR by violating O.A.C. 4121:1-5-11(E) refers to a cycle that is operator-intended.

Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Go-Jo Industries, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (11/10/98)

Evidence supported Commission’s determination to grant VSSR award because device at issue was a conveyor to which the safety code provision, O.A.C. 4121:1-5-05(C)(2), applied. Injured worker who had duties at the machine was an operator even though the machine was automated. Safety device was required where an injured worker was injured at a site which is usual to the performance of his/her duties.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Hina, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (1/28/09)

Commission did not abuse its discretion in finding employer did not commit VSSR.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Hirschvogel, Inc., State ex rel. v. Miller (8/25/99)

Commission did not abuse discretion by granting VSSR award where injury was caused by rubberized grinding wheel. Rubberized wheel is covered by code provision relating to abrasive grinding equipment. Claimant’s claimed negligence irrelevent because negligence is a defense to a VSSR claim only where employer has complied with safety code requirement.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Johnson, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (7/21/09)

Provisions of specific safety codes relating to scaffolding apply to all scaffolds, regardless of whether they have been completed; therefore the Industrial Commission erred by denying a VSSR award because the scaffold which did not comply with the safety code had not yet been completed.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Lange, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (12/13/06)

Safety code provision which applies when machine is shut down does not apply where machine was running at time of injury.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Metcalfe, State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (3/24/09)

Safety code provision requiring device to lock controls in off position when machine is shut down for cleaning did not apply when machine’s controls had to be in on position for cleaning.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Quality Stamping Products, State ex rel. v. Ohio Bur. of Workers’ Comp. (12/30/98)

Statutes relating to employment of minors created safety requirements. Where a minor employee was injured, while working in an occupation prohibited to minors, Commission properly found a safety code violation. Application provided sufficient description of claim to place employer on notice of VSSR required by law.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Sanor Sawmill, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (3/3/04)

Safety code provision which did not define type of saw involved in accident and which refers to equipment that is not part of the saw cannot be used as basis of VSSR award.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., Inc., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (9/24/03)

Under O.A.C. 4121:1-5-02(D)(4), where operating conditions do not permit use of standard guardrail, no additional guardrail is required. In determining whether operating conditions permit use of guardrail, issue is only whether standard guardrail can be used, not whether a modified guardrail could have been used.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Per Curiam

World Stamping & Mfg. Co., State ex rel. v. Indus. Comm. (2/10/99)

Commission did not abuse its discretion in finding that a lack of a front foot pedal cover justified VSSR award.

Vote: 7-0
Opinion by: Per Curiam