Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court held that the former safety rule’s definition of “feed rolls” required the rolls to perform no function other than feeding material. Construing the specific safety requirement strictly in favor of the employer, the court reversed the court of appeals and granted a writ ordering the Industrial Commission to deny the workers’ compensation VSSR award.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the temper mill's work rolls were 'feed rolls' under Bulletin 203, Section 2.8, despite performing both the function of feeding material and the function of tempering it.
- Whether the Industrial Commission abused its discretion by finding that AK Steel violated a specific safety requirement and awarding Davis additional workers' compensation compensation.
Holdings
- The single-function limitation remains part of Bulletin 203, Section 2.8's definition of 'feed rolls'; rolls that perform an additional function beyond feeding material to the point of operation are not 'feed rolls' under the rule.
- The Industrial Commission abused its discretion by implicitly finding that AK Steel's temper-mill work rolls were feed rolls under Bulletin 203, Section 2.8.
Key quotations
“An award to an employee for a violation of a specific safety requirement (“VSSR”) is a penalty to the employer, and hence any doubts concerning the applicability of a specific safety requirement must be resolved in the employer’s favor.” (¶ 19)
“We accordingly clarify that the limitation to a single function is still a part of the definition of “feed rolls” in Section 2.8 of Bulletin 203.” (¶ 20)
“Judgment reversed and writ granted.” (¶ 21)
Factual background
Davis worked as a helper at AK Steel's temper mill, where two powered work rolls tempered stainless-steel coils. During preparation for a production run, the operator activated the mill while Davis was unaware that the rolls were moving; when she attempted to wipe a spot from a roll, the in-running rolls caught her hand and injured her. The mill's nip point was unguarded, and the Industrial Commission found that the work rolls were covered by a safety requirement governing guarded power-driven feed rolls.
Procedural history
After Davis's workers' compensation claim was allowed, she sought additional compensation alleging a violation of Bulletin 203, Section 207. The Industrial Commission granted the application and denied rehearing. AK Steel sought a writ of mandamus in the Franklin County Court of Appeals, which denied the writ, and the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and granted mandamus.
Remand instructions
The court ordered the Industrial Commission to vacate its order allowing the VSSR award and issue an order denying the award.