Case Title: Sunesis Construction Co. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio

Citation: 2018-Ohio-3

Docket Number: 2015-1773

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2018-01-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Sunesis Constr. Co. v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-___.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2018-OHIO-___ 
THE STATE EX REL. SUNESIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. 
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Sunesis Constr. Co. v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion 
No. 2018-Ohio-___.] 
Workers’ compensation—Violation of specific safety requirement—Industrial 
Commission did not abuse it discretion in granting additional award—
Record contained evidence supporting commission’s finding that specific 
safety requirement applied, that employer violated it, and that violation was 
proximate cause of injury—Whether worker disobeyed employer’s 
instruction to stay out of hazardous area is immaterial. 
(No. 2015-1773—Submitted October 17, 2017 — Decided January 2, 2018.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 13AP-449,  
2015-Ohio-3973. 
_______________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Sunesis Construction Company, filed a petition for a writ 
of mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals alleging that appellee 
Industrial Commission abused its discretion when it issued an award of additional 
compensation for violation of a specific safety requirement (“VSSR”) based on 
Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13(D)(1), (D)(2), (E)(1), (E)(2), and (E)(4), which 
regulate trenches and excavations in the construction industry. 
{¶ 2} The court of appeals concluded that there was some evidence 
supporting the commission’s decision and denied the writ of mandamus.  For the 
reasons that follow, we affirm. 
Facts and Administrative Proceedings 
{¶ 3} Timothy R. Roark was employed by Sunesis as a laborer on a sewer 
excavation and construction project.  On July 31, 2005, Roark was working alone 
at the bottom of a trench.  The trench collapsed or caved in on top of him, resulting 
in his death.  There were no witnesses to the accident.  Other workers discovered 
Roark buried up to his neck in dirt, rock, and debris.  He died from a skull fracture 
and traumatic asphyxia. 
{¶ 4} The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation allowed a death claim and 
awarded benefits to Roark’s dependent children.  The dependents filed a separate 
application for an additional award based on numerous violations of specific safety 
requirements (“SSRs”) that apply to sloping, shoring, and bracing to stabilize the 
sides of trenches and excavations. 
{¶ 5} The commission issued three orders addressing the merits of the 
VSSR application.  In 2008, a staff hearing officer concluded that Roark’s death 
was the result of Sunesis’s failure to properly support the trench excavation in 
which he was working.  The hearing officer ordered Sunesis to pay an additional 
award of compensation based on some, but not all, of the alleged violations of Ohio 
Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13. 
January Term, 2018 
 
3
{¶ 6} Sunesis filed for mandamus relief in the Tenth District Court of 
Appeals.  On September 21, 2010, the court issued a writ of mandamus ordering 
the commission to enter a new order that complied with State ex rel. Noll v. Indus. 
Comm., 57 Ohio St.3d 203, 567 N.E.2d 245 (1991) (in any order granting or 
denying benefits, the commission must specifically state what evidence has been 
relied upon and briefly explain its reasoning). 
{¶ 7} In 2011, a staff hearing officer issued a second order, again granting 
the VSSR application in part and denying it in part.  The hearing officer made the 
following factual findings based on photographs taken at the scene and the 
testimony of Chuck Renken, the employer’s director of human resources and safety 
at the time of the accident, and Jeffrey Darrah, Sunesis’s vice president and 
engineer.  Roark was working alone at the bottom of a 20-foot-deep trench.  Three 
sides of the trench were adequately shored.  One was composed of solid concrete 
and shale rock, one was secured by steel road plates, and a third was secured by a 
ten-foot-tall trench box.  The fourth wall consisted of soil that Sunesis attempted to 
shore up by sloping the wall and inserting a steel plate at the top of the wall above 
the sloped area.  It was this sloped wall that caved in on Roark. 
{¶ 8} The hearing officer concluded that the slope was not sufficient to 
protect employees working in the trench, did not meet accepted engineering 
requirements, and did not comply with standards of the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (“OSHA”) or Sunesis’s own safety standards.  Thus, the 
hearing officer concluded, based on Renken’s testimony and the depositions of 
Gary Bradford, field superintendent, and Anthony Roark, site supervisor and 
decedent’s brother, that Roark was working in soft, wet material and was exposed 
to moving ground or the possibility of a cave-in in violation of Ohio Adm.Code 
4123:1-3-13(D)(1) and (2) (unstable or soft material in trenches where employees 
may be exposed to moving ground or cave-ins shall be supported by sufficient 
means to protect them). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
{¶ 9} The hearing officer also determined that the slope did not meet 
accepted engineering requirements and that this failure was the proximate cause of 
the cave-in.  Thus, the hearing officer concluded that Sunesis also violated Ohio 
Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13(E)(1), (2), and (4) (excavations in which employees are 
exposed to danger from moving ground shall be guarded, shall be designed by a 
qualified person, and shall meet accepted engineering requirements). 
{¶ 10} Finally, the hearing officer rejected Sunesis’s argument that Roark 
disregarded instructions to work inside a large underground pipe known as a casing 
and that his failure to do so was the proximate cause of his death, finding no 
evidence that any such instruction was ever given. 
{¶ 11} Sunesis filed a motion for rehearing.  The commission determined 
that the 2011 order was based on a clear mistake of law and ordered rehearing so 
that a staff hearing officer could identify the amount of sloping necessary based on 
the type of soil involved, according to Table 13-1 in the appendix to Ohio 
Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13(D)(1) and (2). 
{¶ 12} A staff hearing officer issued a third order, in October 2012, adding 
language that identified the type of soil involved as “soft material, Class C soil with 
ground water” and stated that Table 13-1 addresses the approximate angle of repose 
for sloping of sides of excavations.  A note to Table 13-1 states, “The presence of 
ground water requires special treatment.” 
{¶ 13} In all other respects, the 2012 order was identical to the 2011 order. 
{¶ 14} In March 2013, the commission denied Sunesis’s request for 
reconsideration and ordered that the October 2012 order remain in effect. 
Petition for Writ of Mandamus 
{¶ 15} On May 30, 2013, Sunesis filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in 
the Tenth District Court of Appeals seeking an order compelling the commission 
to vacate the October 2012 order and to deny the VSSR application. 
January Term, 2018 
 
5
{¶ 16} The court of appeals denied the writ.  The court stated that Roark’s 
negligence was not relevant because SSRs are intended to protect even negligent 
employees and Roark’s negligence would bar a VSSR award only if he had 
deliberately neutralized the slope of the trench. 
{¶ 17} Next, the court of appeals concluded that the hearing officer did not 
abuse his discretion when he failed to determine the actual degree of the slope per 
Table 13-1:   
 
The [staff hearing officer’s] order in this case clearly specified that the 
soil on the unbraced end of the trench was wet and presented the 
potential for moving ground requiring “special treatment.”  The [staff 
hearing officer] therefore did not need to refer to the slope specifications 
of Table 13-1 for different types of ground because wet ground 
specifically falls outside the table guidelines. 
 
(Footnote omitted.)  2015-Ohio-3973 at ¶ 12. 
{¶ 18} The court further stated that the “testimony in the record clearly 
corroborates the reference to Type C soil as soft, wet, non-homogenous, saturated 
soil that presented an increased risk of cave-in.”  Id. at ¶ 13. 
{¶ 19} In addition, the court of appeals determined that the testimony of 
four Sunesis employees—Anthony Roark, Chuck Renken, Jeffrey Darrah, and 
Gary Bradford—was sufficient evidence to support the commission’s conclusion 
that Sunesis had failed to adequately brace or slope the fourth side of the trench and 
that the failure was the proximate cause of the accident.  The court stated that this 
testimony, along with photographs in the record, constituted some evidence to 
support the commission’s determination that the deficient trench design was the 
proximate cause of the collapse. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
{¶ 20} Finally, the court of appeals concluded that there was some evidence 
that the design of the trench did not meet accepted engineering requirements, 
including evidence, also based on testimony from Sunesis employees, that the 
trench did not meet accepted OSHA or Sunesis internal standards. 
{¶ 21} The direct appeal filed by Sunesis is before the court. 
Legal Analysis 
{¶ 22} To prevail on its claim for the extraordinary remedy of a writ of 
mandamus, Sunesis must demonstrate that the commission’s decision to issue a 
VSSR award was an abuse of discretion.  See State ex rel. Armstrong Steel Erectors, 
Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 144 Ohio St.3d 243, 2015-Ohio-4525, 41 N.E.3d 1233, ¶ 13.  
An abuse of discretion occurs when the record contains no evidence to support the 
commission’s order.  State ex rel. Burley v. Coil Packing, Inc., 31 Ohio St.3d 18, 
20, 508 N.E.2d 936 (1987).  So long as some evidence supports the commission’s 
order, there was no abuse of discretion, and the court must uphold the decision.  
Armstrong Steel Erectors at ¶ 13. 
{¶ 23} When a VSSR is alleged against an employer, the commission must 
determine whether an SSR was in effect and applied at the time of the injury, 
whether the employer violated the requirement, and whether the failure to comply 
proximately caused the injury.  State ex rel. Supreme Bumpers, Inc. v. Indus. Comm, 
98 Ohio St.3d 134, 2002-Ohio-7089, 781 N.E.2d 170, ¶ 46. 
{¶ 24} The commission determined that Sunesis violated the following 
sections of Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13: 
 
(D)  Trenches. 
(1)  The exposed faces of all trenches more than five feet 
high shall be shored, laid back to a stable slope, or some other 
equivalent means of protection shall be provided where employees 
January Term, 2018 
 
7
may be exposed to moving ground or cave-ins.  (See appendix 
“Table 13-1”). 
(2)  Sides of trenches in unstable or soft material, five feet or 
more in depth, shall be shored, sheeted, braced, sloped, or otherwise 
supported by means of sufficient strength to protection employees 
working within them.  (See appendix Table 13-1 and “Table 13-2”). 
* * * 
(E) Excavations. 
(1) The walls and faces of all excavations in which 
employees are exposed to danger from moving ground shall be 
guarded by a shoring system, sloping of the ground, or some other 
equivalent means. 
(2) Supporting systems, i.e. piling, cribbing, shoring, etc., 
shall be designed by a qualified person and shall meet accepted 
engineering requirements. 
* * * 
(4) Sides, slopes, and faces of all excavations shall meet 
accepted 
engineering 
requirements 
by 
scaling, 
benching, 
barricading, rock bolting, wire meshing, or other equally effective 
means. 
 
 
{¶ 25} Sunesis argues that the commission’s decision was not supported by 
some evidence in the record.  First, Sunesis maintains that it should not be 
responsible for Roark’s unilateral negligence in entering a hazardous area when 
instructed to stay out.  Next, Sunesis argues that the commission failed to address 
the requirements in Table 13-1—the angle of the slope and whether “special 
treatment” was required.  Third, Sunesis contends that there was a lack of evidence 
that a VSSR proximately caused the injury. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
{¶ 26} Sunesis’s arguments lack merit.  The commission’s order was 
supported by evidence in the record that (1) Sunesis violated the SSRs at issue, (2) 
Table 13.1 did not apply, (3) the VSSRs were the proximate cause of Roark’s death, 
and (4) unilateral negligence does not apply as a defense. 
{¶ 27} Here, the commission relied on the testimony of Sunesis employees 
that the trench at issue was more than five feet high and consisted of unstable or 
soft material, thus exposing employees to moving ground or cave-ins.  The 
commission also relied on evidence that Sunesis employees had inserted a steel 
plate at the top of the fourth wall, but it did not cover the sloped portion of the wall 
that caved in on Roark, resulting in his death.  Thus, there was some evidence to 
support the commission’s conclusion that Sunesis violated 4123:1-3-13(D)(1) and 
(2) by failing to provide a support of sufficient strength to protect employees from 
moving ground or cave-ins. 
{¶ 28} In addition, the commission relied on the testimony of Sunesis 
employees that no one at Sunesis consulted an engineer about the design of the 
slope of the trench wall and that the sloped wall did not meet accepted engineering 
requirements, including OSHA or Sunesis safety standards.  Thus, there was some 
evidence that Sunesis had violated Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-13(E)(1), (2), and (4).  
The commission acknowledged Table 13-1, but as the court of appeals stated, the 
soil on the unbraced end of the trench was wet and presented the potential for 
moving ground that required “special treatment” under Table 13-1.  Consequently, 
the wet ground specifically fell outside the guidelines of Table 13-1. 
{¶ 29} Finally, the defense of unilateral negligence does not apply here.  
Because the critical issue in a VSSR claim is always whether the employer 
complied with the SSR, see State ex rel. Quality Tower Serv., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 
88 Ohio St.3d 190, 193, 724 N.E.2d 778 (2000), an employee’s conduct, even if 
negligent, is not relevant to a VSSR determination unless the injury is caused by 
the claimant’s deliberate circumvention or disabling of a safety device or refusal to 
January Term, 2018 
 
9
use employer-provided safety equipment.  State ex rel. Pressware Internatl., Inc. v. 
Indus. Comm., 85 Ohio St.3d 284, 288, 707 N.E.2d 935 (1999).  The commission 
did not abuse its discretion when it refused to consider the issue of unilateral 
negligence. 
{¶ 30} Therefore, it was within the commission’s discretion to conclude 
that the trench was not properly shored or braced, exposing employees to the danger 
of moving ground, and that Sunesis’s failure to comply with the SSRs at issue 
proximately caused the death of Roark.  Because Sunesis failed to demonstrate that 
the commission abused its discretion when it issued a VSSR award, we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals denying the extraordinary remedy of a writ of 
mandamus.    
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and O’DONNELL, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, and 
DEWINE, JJ., concur. 
KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only. 
_________________ 
Dunlevy, Mahan & Furry, Douglas S. Jenks, William H. Barney, and Gary 
W. Auman, for appellant. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Andrew J. Alatis and Cheryl J. 
Nester, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
Fox & Fox Co., L.P.A., Bernard C. Fox, and Karen P. Mitchell, for appellee 
Timothy R. Roark, deceased. 
_________________