Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Smith v. Huguelet

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 2, 1991No. 89-989PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per 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…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Mitchell v. Robbins & Myers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State ex rel. Jeep Corp. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State ex rel. Thompson Building Associates, Inc. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Martin Painting & Coating Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. State ex rel. St. Marys Foundry Co. v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Martin Painting & Coating Co. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State ex rel. Precision Steel Servs., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
  5. State ex rel. St. Marys Foundry Co. v. Indus. Comm.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997

3 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