Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The STATE ex rel. CURTIN, Appellant, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO et al., Appellees.
Per Curiam. Claimant asserts violations of two specific safety requirements. Finding that the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying a VSSR award, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-03(J)(1) directs employers to provide lifelines, safety belts, and lanyards to employees “exposed to hazards of falling when the operation being performed is more than fifteen feet above ground or above a floor or platform.” The code does not define the phrase “operation being performed.” As such, its interpretation lies solely within the commission's sound discretion. State ex rel. Berry v. Indus. Comm. (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 193, 4 OBR 513, 448 N.E.2d 134. Equally important, specific safety requirements “must be strictly construed, and all reasonable doubts construing the interpretation of the safety standard are to be construed against its applicability to the employer.” State ex rel. Burton v. Indus. Comm. (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 170, 172, 545 N.E.2d 1216, 1219.
These principles compel our conclusion that the commission's interpretation was not unreasonable. Accordingly, we find that the commission did not abuse its discretion in measuring “operation being performed” as the distance between the employee's feet and the ground, floor, or platform. Since that distance was less than fifteen feet, the commission's refusal to find a violation of Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-03(J)(1) was appropriate.
Claimant also alleges a violation of Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-14(B)(8). Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-14(B), however, is entitled simply “definitions.” As such, the commission ruled that subsection (B)(8), falling thereunder, was only a definition and not a specific safety requirement that imposed a duty on an employer. We agree and find that the commission did not abuse its discretion in denying a violation of this subsection.
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
PER CURIAM.
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr., PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 98-105.
Decided: September 22, 1999
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)