State ex rel. 31, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (Slip Opinion)

*247 *350 {¶ 1} This is an appeal in a mandamus case in which appellant, 31, Inc., challenges the order of appellee Industrial Commission granting an additional award for the violation of a specific safety requirement ("VSSR"). The commission determined that 31, Inc. had violated the "nip point" rule found in Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-11(D)(10)(a), thereby causing an industrial injury to appellee Duane Ashworth.

{¶ 2} The Tenth District Court of Appeals denied the request for a writ, concluding that the commission did not abuse its discretion.

{¶ 3} We hold that the nip-point rule did not apply here…