State ex rel. Lovell v. Industrial Commission

We are asked to determine whether the commission abused its discretion in denying both claimant’s VSSR and rehearing applications. For the reasons to follow, we find that it did not.

Of the several violations initially alleged, claimant now pursues only one — Ohio Adm.Code 4121:l-5-08(D)(l)(b). That section reads:

“The hood type guard shall be so designed as to prevent a kickback or a separate attachment that will prevent a kickback shall be provided. Anti-kickback devices shall be effective for all thicknesses of material that are cut.”

The parties agree the saw had no anti-kickback device. The…