Case Title: State ex rel. Harris v. Atlas Crankshaft Corp.

Citation: 2000-Ohio-69

Docket Number: 19990420

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-11-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Harris v. Atlas Crankshaft Corp, 90 Ohio St.3d 257, 2000-
Ohio-69.] 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. HARRIS, APPELLANT, v. ATLAS CRANKSHAFT CORPORATION ET 
AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Harris v. Atlas Crankshaft Corp. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 257.] 
Workers’ compensation — Industrial Commission does not abuse its discretion 
in denying a violation of specific safety requirement application when 
order is supported by “some evidence” — Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-
12(C)(1) requires instruction only on safe machine operation. 
(No. 99-420 — Submitted August 22, 2000 — Decided November 8, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 97APD12-1715. 
 
Appellant-claimant, Daniel C. Harris, Sr., was a long-time employee of 
appellee Atlas Crankshaft Corporation (“Atlas”).  Claimant’s department 
processed forged crankshafts into finished products.  Among the machines used 
was a fully automated monotonic crankshaft broaching machine (“broacher”). 
 
The broaching process essentially shaved the crankshaft’s bearings, by 
indexing a cutting carbide through a rotating crankshaft.  The process started with 
a hydraulic loading arm placing a crankshaft into the broacher.  The loader then 
released the part and returned to the up position. 
 
Once the crankshaft was in place, it was clamped, and then rotated  at a 
high speed.  While the crankshaft was rotating, a circular tool arbor equipped with 
the carbide tools began a slow revolution around the spinning crankshaft.  Near 
the end of the revolution, the arbor cleared the crankshaft.  The crankshaft then 
stopped spinning, ideally in the index or home position, for removal by the 
loading arm. 
 
At this point, the access doors opened and the crankshaft was unclamped.  
The arbor would continue the short remainder of its revolution, seeking its home 
position.  It is unclear from the record which return to home—the crankshaft’s or 
 
 
2 
the arbor’s—signaled the loading arm to descend.  In any event, unloading 
marked the completion of the cycle. 
 
Of the four broachers in claimant’s department, machine number four had, 
for some time, intermittently malfunctioned.  The exact frequency was unknown 
but has been estimated at two to four times per shift. 
 
The specifics of the malfunction differ depending on who was asked.  The 
parties seem to agree that the problem was caused when the tool arbor knocked 
the crankshaft out of position.  This would prevent the loader from removing the 
part and completing the cycle, and could, said some, result in the loader 
descending onto—and possibly damaging—the broacher’s rollers and slides. 
 
Atlas knew of the problem and had tried to fix it.  Repair personnel, 
however, could not diagnose the problem without actually seeing it occur.  
Unfortunately, because of its infrequency, repairmen, although they tried, were 
never at the right spot at the right time to catch the machine in the act of 
malfunction. 
 
As a result, Atlas trained its employees in a safe way to deal with the 
malfunction.  Employees were trained to switch the machine from automatic to 
manual mode.  The employee then inserted his or her arm into the broacher and 
repositioned the crankshaft.  All agree that it was impossible for the loader to 
descend while the broacher was in manual. 
 
Apparently, sometime in 1992, claimant’s seniority prompted his transfer 
to the number four broacher.  Norman Musgrave, an Atlas employee familiar with 
the broacher, was assigned to train claimant on the number four machine.  
Claimant had at least one month of training, and, according to Musgrave, more 
than double that.  (Musgrave testified that he had previously trained claimant on 
how to operate the machine for approximately one month.) 
 
Musgrave explained to claimant that the machine occasionally 
malfunctioned 
and 
instructed 
claimant—both 
verbally 
and 
through 
 
 
3 
demonstration—to put the broacher in manual mode before ever reaching into the 
machine.  At the end of the training session, claimant signed an “Operator[’s] 
Skills Checklist and Task Requirements” form that attested to claimant’s 
understanding of safety procedures involving the  number four broacher.  
Musgrave, however, expressed to supervisory personnel serious misgivings about 
claimant’s understanding of the complex machine and his ability to operate it. 
 
On January 4, 1993, claimant began running the broacher.  On April 14, 
1993, the machine had apparently malfunctioned and claimant reached into the 
machine to right a crankshaft without putting the broacher into manual.  The 
loader, in turn, lowered onto claimant’s arm, causing severe injury. 
 
After his workers’ compensation claim was allowed, claimant applied for 
additional compensation, alleging that Atlas had violated several specific safety 
requirements (“VSSR”).  Among those cited was Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-
12(C)(1), which required that “[t]he employer shall  verbally and through 
demonstration instruct the employee in the safe operation and maintenance of 
abrasive grinding and cutting and polishing equipment.” 
 
At a July 16, 1996 hearing before a staff hearing officer (“SHO”) of 
appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio, claimant conceded that he had been 
instructed, both verbally and through demonstration, on how to correct the  
broacher’s malfunction.  He also stated that he was told to put the machine into 
manual and was shown how to do it.  He testified, however, that he had seen 
Musgrave insert his arm into the broacher while the machine was still on 
automatic.  Claimant finally indicated that he never really understood the 
broacher’s “many buttons” and was intimidated by it. 
 
The SHO denied the claimed violation based on the affidavit of Nolan C. 
Reinhard, production supervisor in Atlas’s crankshaft department.  The SHO 
stated: 
 
 
4 
 
“Based on the October 13, 1995 affidavit of Nolan C. Reinhard, it is found 
that claimant was given approximately four weeks of training on the machine 
which injured him, including training both verbally and by demonstration.  It is 
specifically found that this course of training is sufficient to satisfy the cited 
requirement.” 
 
Rehearing was denied, with the reviewing hearing officer additionally 
citing transcript evidence attesting to two months of claimant training. 
 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying his 
VSSR application.  The court disagreed, after finding that the commission’s order 
was supported by “some evidence,” as found by the court’s magistrate. 
 
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Gene P. Murray, for appellant. 
 
Earl, Warburton, Adams & Davis and Bruce L. Hirsch, for appellee Atlas 
Crankshaft Corporation. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Cheryl J. Nester, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  The specific safety requirement at issue requires the 
employer to instruct the employee in the safe operation of qualifying machines 
both “verbally and through demonstration.”  Claimant acknowledges that he was 
instructed to place the broacher into the manual mode before reaching into the 
machine to adjust the crankshaft.  He also concedes that he was both told and 
shown how to put the broacher into the manual mode.  Yet, he failed to place the 
machine in the manual mode at the time of accident. 
 
Claimant argues that the malfunction rendered the broacher inherently 
unsafe and that, regardless of instruction, there is no safe way to operate an 
 
 
5 
inherently unsafe machine.  The flaw in this argument lies in claimant’s 
description of the broacher as inherently unsafe. 
 
Claimant leaves unchallenged three key points: (1) the normal broaching 
process never required insertion of a body part into the machine while it was on 
automatic, (2) it was not necessary for the machine to remain in automatic in 
order to correct the crankshaft, and (3) the loader could not descend if the 
machine was in manual.  This undermines claimant’s assertion that the machine 
(and/or his duties) were inherently dangerous. 
 
Claimant’s arguments are not always clear, so perhaps he believes that the 
broacher was inherently dangerous because the danger zone was accessible during 
the automatic cycle.  If this is the gist of claimant’s argument, however, he did not 
cite an appropriate specific safety requirement.  Again, Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-
5-12(C)(1) requires instruction only on safe machine operation.  It does not 
impose the duty implied by claimant.  Here, the commission had “some evidence” 
that claimant was adequately trained.  No more is required to sustain denial of this 
alleged violation. 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.