STATE, EX REL. ALCORN v. INDUS. COMM., 18 Ohio St.2d 164 (1969)

248 N.E.2d 193

THE STATE, EX REL. ALCORN, APPELLEE v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLANT.

No. 69-73Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided May 28, 1969.

Workmen’s compensation — Additional award for violation of specific safety requirement — Two-hand tripping device required on power press — One control button disconnected at time of injury.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

This is an action in mandamus which was filed by the relator, appellee herein, in the Court of Appeals. The prayer of the petition is that an alternative writ of mandamus issue, ordering the respondent “to find that there has been a violation of Section 700.1a and/or 700.2a of Bulletin Number 203,” as alleged in the petition.

There is no dispute concerning the facts. The relator, in her petition, states that she filed a claim for workmen’s compensation for an injury sustained February 2, 1966, in the course of and arising out of her employment with the K.D.I. Corporation in Cincinnati, Ohio. The injury consisted of a laceration of the left index finger, with a resultant abscess and one-third loss by amputation of the distal phalanx of that finger.

At the time of the injury, the relator was operating a Dennison Hydraulic Press, pressing pins into a rotor housing and her left index finger was caught in the assembly fixture when the press was activated by the right hand control button.

Her application for workmen’s compensation was allowed and compensation was paid for the period of total disability and for one-third loss of the left index finger.

Following the allowance of her claim, relator filed an

Page 165

application for an additional award for the violation of a specific safety requirement under Section 35, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. This application alleged that the employer had not complied with Bulletin No. 203, Sections 700.1a, 700.2a(5) and 700.5a, published by the Industrial Commission of Ohio, Department of Industrial Relations, effective January 3, 1955.

The Industrial Commission found that the claimant’s injuries were not caused by the employer’s violation of any specific safety requirement and denied the relator’s application.

A motion for rehearing of the application for additional award for violation of a specific requirement was filed. Upon consideration thereof, the commission dismissed the motion.

The Court of Appeals found that there was a violation of a specific safety requirement, granted the writ of mandamus sought by the relator and ordered the Industrial Commission to make the award as required by the Constitution.

Mr. Philip R. Finkelmeier, for appellee.

Mr. Paul W. Brown, attorney general, Mr. Walter J. Howdyshell
and Mr. J. William Petro, for appellant.

Per Curiam.

Section 700.1a, at page 40 of Bulletin No. 203, entitled “Guarding,” promulgated by the Industrial Commission, provides:

“Every power press in use shall be constructed, or shall be guarded to prevent the hands or fingers of the operator from entering the danger zone during the operating cycle.”

Section 700.2a, at page 41 of Bulletin No. 203, entitled “Acceptable Methods of Guarding Manual Feed Presses, by:” provides:

” * * *

“(5) Two-Hand Tripping Device.”

Page 166

A two-hand tripping device is defined in Section 700.2a as follows:

“A two-hand tripping device means a device designed and constructed to require the simultaneous use of both hands of the operator to trip the press.”

This machine clearly falls within the provisions of Section 700.1a. It is a hydraulic press designed and constructed to be operated with a two-hand tripping device, which is one of the acceptable guarding methods referred to in Section 700.2a. This device would prevent any finger of either hand of the operator from entering the danger zone during the operating cycle. The control button on the left side of the press had been disconnected and it was not working at the time of the injury. This was a violation of Sections 700.1a and 700.2a of the specific safety requirements promulgated by the Industrial Commission. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is, therefore, affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

TAFT, C.J., CORRIGAN, MATTHIAS, O’NEILL, SCHNEIDER, HERBERT and DUNCAN, JJ., concur.

CORRIGAN, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for ZIMMERMAN, J.

Page 167