Legal Opinion

State v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1985No. 83-596PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Per curiam

The question before this court is whether there is any evidence in the record to support appellee’s finding that “* * * claimant’s injury was the result of employer’s failure to provide sufficient guards for *105the two-phase process during the entire operating cycle of the machine, as required by IC-5-08.03(A) * * *.” (Emphasis sic.)

IC-5-08.03(A)(l) stated:

“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.”

Additionally, IC-5-08.03(B)(l)(d) specifically provided that the Pull…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. M. T. D. Products, Inc. v. StebbinsOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. State ex rel. Cox v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Aspinwall v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. State ex rel. Garza v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State ex rel. Advanced Metal Precision Products v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  4. State ex rel. Penwell v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2015
  5. State ex rel. Garza v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002

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

Powered by the Exa API