 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State ex rel Go-Jo Industries v. Industrial Commission11/10/1998
[Cite as State ex rel. Go-Jo Industries v. Indus. Comm. (1998), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Workers' compensation - Violation of specific safety requirements Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-05(C)(2) and (D)(1), construed and applied.
Submitted October 13, 1998
On August 21, 1990, appellee-claimant, Rodney L. Gist, was employed as a "lead operator" of a machine for appellant, Go-Jo Industries. The process to which claimant was assigned involved the packaging of powdered soap products. The process started with a Protopak machine that filled plastic bags with soap. The bags were then put on a conveyor belt and transported to a work table. There, workers inserted small nozzles into the bags. Once the task was completed, the bags were transferred to a second conveyor, which carried them to a machine called the Jones Cartoner ("Cartoner"). The Cartoner had several functions. It unfolded a product carton, dropped the soap bag into it, and then sealed the carton. Cartons were moved within the Cartoner by a transport system. This system had a gear drive and plastic lugs or fingers that were attached to a chain that was inside the machine. Cartons were advanced by indexing the fingers via a brake clutch.
As lead operator of the Cartoner, claimant had many duties, including ensuring that product requirements and quotas were met. Towards this end, there was testimony that claimant had been instructed to keep the production line moving "no matter what." In order to do so, it was imperative to immediately remove from the Cartoner partially opened L-shaped cartons.
The Cartoner had a photoelectric sensor that was to stop the machine when it detected an L-carton. The sensor on this particular Cartoner had a history of occasionally failing to detect L-cartons. On such occasions, claimant had seen supervisors remove L-cartons by hand without first stopping the machine, in order to eliminate downtime.
At the time of injury, the line was experiencing an unusually high number of L-cartons. For this reason, claimant positioned himself at what he considered from experience and observation of superiors to be a strategic place on the line to watch for L-cartons. Claimant spotted an L-carton and reached into the Cartoner to remove it. Before he could withdraw his hand, the transport system indexed. Lacking an accessible means of stopping the machine, claimant had his hand pulled into the system, resulting in the injury of record.
After his workers' compensation claim was allowed, claimant moved appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio for additional compensation, alleging that Go-Jo had violated several specific safety requirements ("VSSRs"). Among those VSSRs alleged were Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-05(C)(2) and (D)(1). Those sections provide:
"Rule 4121: 1-5-05. AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT. " * * * "(C) Power-driven conveyors - chain, bucket, belt, hook and screw. " * * * "(2) Conveyors exposed to contact. "All conveyors, where exposed to contact, shall be equipped with means to disengage them from their power supply at such points of contact. " * * * "(D) Machinery control. "(1) Disengaging from power supply. "Means shall be provided at each machine, within easy reach of the operator, for disengaging it from its power supply. * * *"
On October 22, 1993, a commission staff hearing officer ("SHO") found a violation of Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-05(C)(2). Go-Jo successfully moved for rehearing. In granting the motion on March 2, 1994, a second SHO wrote:
" he Motion for Rehearing granted for the reason [that] it has demonstrated that the order of 10/22/93 was based on an obvious mistake of fact, in accordance with OAC 4121-3-20(G)(1)(b).
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|