Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Taylor v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 28, 1994No. 93-1464PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Per curiam

Claimant challenges the denial of four YSSRs: Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-10(0(3) and (C)(4)(b), 4121:l-3-04(E)(l), and 4121:l-3-03(J)(l). For the reasons to follow, we affirm the judgment of the appellate court.

Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-10 governs scaffolding. The commission denied all violations alleged thereunder after concluding that the regulation did not cover the type of equipment from which claimant fell. The commission reached the right result for the wrong reason.

The commission characterized the Mite-E-Lift as a “self-propelled elevated work platform.” A “scaffold” is “any temporary…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Burton v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. State ex rel. M. T. D. Products, Inc. v. StebbinsOhio Supreme Court · 1975

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Maghie & Savage, Inc. v. NobelOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State Ex Rel. Richmond v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2014
  3. State ex rel. Camaco, L.L.C. v. Albu (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2017
  4. State ex rel. Gilbert v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  5. State ex rel. Penwell v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2015

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API