State ex rel. King v. Industrial Commission

Appellant attacks the commission’s judgment on two grounds: first, that there was no evidence before the commission to support the finding that the mechanical pullout bars on the press complied with the requirements of Ohio Adm. Code 4121:l-5-ll(E); and second, that the commission’s construction of this administrative code section, as applied to the facts of this case, was inconsistent and illogical when compared to this court’s judgment in State, ex rel. Geauga Indus. Co., v. Indus. Comm. (1979), 60 Ohio St. 2d 109, 14 O.O. 3d 341, 397 N.E. 2d 1202.

Appellant’s evidentiary argument is founded…