Opinion
No. 78-675
Decided December 12, 1979.
Workers' compensation — Application for additional award — Allowance not abuse of discretion, when.
IN MANDAMUS.
On October 30, 1974, Laura Daugherty (claimant-intervenor herein) sustained an accidental injury in the course of her employment with Geauga Industries Company (relator), a Division of Carlisle Corporation. At the time of her injury, claimant was operating a Mighty Mite molding machine. Claimant observed the following procedure: claimant sprayed the die area with an oil-type water, removed the stock parts from the crate, placed six parts into the die area, and then stepped over to the console panel and pressed two buttons (a two-handed tripping device, which activated the machine and formed the parts); the second phase of the process began when the machine automatically opened and claimant blew air under the six parts with an air hose, and, finally, removed the finished parts from the machine.
On the day of the injury, claimant had experienced problems with the middle mold sticking on the top mold during the second phase of the process. On the last such occasion, when the middle mold stuck to the top mold, claimant put her hands between the middle mold and the stationary bottom mold to unload the parts, when the middle mold suddenly released and fell, crushing claimant's right hand.
Claimant's claim was allowed by the Bureau of Workers' Compensation for burns, loss of her right index finger, and the loss of the ends of three other fingers. On December 29, 1975, claimant applied for an additional award for the violation of a specific safety requirement. After an amended application was filed and a hearing held thereon, the Industrial Commission granted claimant's application. Relator made a motion for a rehearing, which was denied by the commission.
Relator then filed an original action in mandamus in this court alleging an abuse of discretion on the part of the commission, and contending that there was a clear legal duty on the part of the commission to enter a finding in favor of relator on the application for an additional award.
Messrs. Thrasher, Dinsmore Dolan and Mr. Joseph R. Znidarsic, for relator.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. James R. Piercy, for respondent Industrial Commission.
Messrs. Freeman, Igoe, Hanson Polhamus and Mr. William R. Polhamus, for intervening respondent Laura Daugherty.
The Industrial Commission has broad discretion in the performance of its duties and its actions are presumed to be in all respects valid and in the exercise of good faith and sound judgment. State, ex rel. Gerspacher, v. Coffinberry (1952), 157 Ohio St. 32. As long as there is some evidence to support the commission's findings and no abuse of discretion is shown, the commission's order will not be disturbed. State, ex rel. General Motors Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 155.
Relator objects to the determination made by the commission that relator violated IC-5-08.03(A). That regulation provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "(1) Construction. 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." (Emphasis added.) The machine herein was equipped with a two-hand tripping device, which is one of the enumerated acceptable methods in IC-5-08.03(B). Relator argues that since an acceptable method to guard from injury was used, then claimant's application for an award for a specific violation must be denied. If the safety requirement was complied with, a writ of mandamus will be issued, even though injury resulted from a defect in the machine. State, ex rel. M.T.D. Products, v. Stebbins (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 114; State, ex rel. Springfield Container Corp., v. Stebbins (1976), 45 Ohio St.2d 289.
However, the commission in this case found that there were not sufficient guards for the machine during the entire operating cycle of the machine as required by IC-5-08.03(A). There was a guard for the first phase of the process, but there was no guard during the second phase. It was during the second phase of the operating cycle that claimant was injured. Hence, it was not unreasonable for the commission to require guards for the entire operating cycle of the machine. We find no abuse of discretion by the commission in awarding claimant the added benefits for a violation of a specific safety requirement.
Therefore, the writ prayed for is denied.
Writ denied.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.