State ex rel. Smith v. Huguelet

564 N.E.2d 698, 57 Ohio St. 3d 1, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 3
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 2, 1991
DocketNo. 89-989
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 564 N.E.2d 698 (State ex rel. Smith v. Huguelet) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State ex rel. Smith v. Huguelet, 564 N.E.2d 698, 57 Ohio St. 3d 1, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 3 (Ohio 1991).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The single issue presented is whether the commission must specifically address each violation alleged in the VSSR application. Appellees essentially contend that once one violation proximately causing a claimant’s injuries is found, any remaining violations can be disregarded. We disagree.

Appellee Valan mistakenly believes that there can be only one safety violation for each award. This position, however, ignores our previous decisions, such as State, ex rel. Thompson Bldg. Assoc., Inc., v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 36 Ohio St. 3d 199, 522 N.E. 2d 545, in which we upheld commission decisions that found multiple VSSRs involved in a single award.

We recognize that multiple violations do not generate multiple awards. Contrary to appellees’ representation, however, appellant does not seek a second award. He merely asks the commission to determine whether there was a second safety violation. As Thompson Bldg. Assoc., supra, indicates, a claimant is only entitled to a single VSSR award regardless of the number of violations found. The amount of that award, however, may be influenced by the number of violations. See id.

The commission argues that its order complies with State, ex rel. Jeep Corp., v. Indus. Comm. (1989), 42 Ohio St. 3d 83, 537 N.E. 2d 215. We again find otherwise.

Jeep Corp. held that under State, ex rel. Mitchell, v. Robbins & Myers, Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 481, 6 OBR 531, 453 N.E. 2d 721, the commission need not explain how it calculated the amount of the VSSR award. Appellant, however, does not seek this explanation. He is, again, merely asking the commission to determine whether Ohio Adm. Code 4121:l-3-10(C)(7) was violated. The commission must make that decision before it can potentially reach the question of VSSR award adjustment.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the appellate court and issue a limited writ returning the cause to the commission to determine whether Ohio Adm. Code 4121:l-3-10(C)(7) was violated and, if so, whether appellant’s VSSR award warrants adjustment.

Judgment reversed and limited writ issued.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Res-nick, JJ., concur. Holmes, J., concurs separately.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Evilsizor
2019 Ohio 4094 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2019)
State ex rel. Precision Steel Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
2013 Ohio 4381 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
State ex rel. St. Marys Foundry Co. v. Indus. Comm.
1997 Ohio 25 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
State ex rel. St. Marys Foundry Co. v. Industrial Commission
678 N.E.2d 1390 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1997)
State ex rel. Gabriel v. Youngstown
1996 Ohio 445 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
564 N.E.2d 698, 57 Ohio St. 3d 1, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-smith-v-huguelet-ohio-1991.