Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Garza v. Industrial Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 6, 2002No. 00-1813PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

On February 4, 1996, appellant-claimant, Graciela Garza, was working as a finisher for appellee Lear Corporation. Claimant was assigned to Fixture Number 85, a pneumatic press that manufactured parts for automobile heating and air conditioning units.

As described by an investigator:

“When the press is activated by activating dual sensors located on each side of the press, the ram comes down and severs the lightweight plastic tube into three *398pieces. One of the pieces is discarded and the other two (2) are used for the automotive part. The operator has to physically reach in with his (her) hand…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Burton v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. State ex rel. Aspinwall v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. State v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1985

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Gilbert v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. State ex rel. Advanced Metal Precision Products v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  3. State Ex Rel. Gerstenslager Co. v. Wilson, 06ap-512 (5-31-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. 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