Case Title: State ex rel. Hirschvogel, Inc. v. Miller

Citation: 1999-Ohio-96

Docket Number: 19971630

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1999-08-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
THE STATE EX REL. HIRSCHVOGEL, INC., APPELLANT, v. MILLER; INDUSTRIAL 
COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Hirschvogel, Inc. v. Miller (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 215.] 
Workers’ compensation — Grinding wheel shatters during use — Claimant’s 
application for additional compensation for violation of several specific 
safety requirements granted, when — Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-
12(D)(3)(a)(i) and (4)(a). 
(No. 97-1630 — Submitted July 28, 1999 — Decided August 25, 1999.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 96APD05-580. 
 
Claimant, Richard E. Miller, worked for appellant, Hirschvogel, Inc., as a 
tool and die polisher.  To perform this task, claimant’s work station was equipped 
with several hand-held grinders, none with a speed below 17,000 R.P.M.s. 
 
Grinding wheels were also supplied at the work station.  Sometimes the 
wheel was already attached to an armature, and claimant merely had to attach the 
armature to the grinder. 
 
On June 25, 1992, claimant was told to polish “Butler punches.”  Claimant 
was injured when the grinding wheel shattered, breaking his safety glasses and 
driving lens fragments into his left eye. 
 
After his workers’ compensation claim was allowed, claimant applied for 
additional compensation, alleging that his employer had violated several specific 
safety requirements (“VSSRs”).  An investigation by appellee Industrial 
Commission of Ohio revealed that the injurious grinding wheel — a Cratex 203-A 
polishing disc — had a maximum rated speed of 10,500 R.P.M.s. 
 
At the commission hearing, claimant testified that supervisor William Akers 
had instructed him earlier to use the Cratex disc on the Butler punches.  Claimant 
was unaware of the Cratex’s maximum rated speed.  Claimant stated that on the 
date of injury, the wheel and armature were already assembled, attached to each 
2 
other with a screw and a bolt.  Claimant indicated that there were no flanges on the 
wheel.  Claimant stated that he had never seen flanges used on that wheel 
previously and had never been told by Hirschvogel to use them on that wheel. 
 
A staff hearing officer granted claimant’s application, writing: 
 
“It is the specific finding that the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Safety 
Violations Investigation Unit report, photographs, invoices, diagrams, charts, and 
the statements from witnesses show the claimant was injured on June 25, 1992 
while working as a tool & die polisher.  The evidence indicates the claimant was 
operating a ‘hand held deprag grinder’ with R.P.M.’s of 19,000.  There was other 
evidence indicating the grinder in question had R.P.M.’s of 28,750.  The wheel in 
question was labeled with a maximum safe speed of 10,500 R.P.M.’s. 
 
“ * * * 
 
“ [Ohio Adm.Code] 4121:1-5-12(D)(3)(a)(i) states the following: 
 
“ ‘(3)  Flanges 
 
“ ‘(a)  General Requirements. 
 
“ ‘(i)  All abrasive wheels shall be mounted between flanges which shall not 
be less than on[e]-third the diameter of the wheel.’ 
 
“ * * * [T]here was a safety violation of this section in the Code.  This 
section requires ‘all’ abrasive wheels be mounted between flanges not less than 
one-third the diameter of the wheel.  The statements from the claimant and Pat 
Martindale indicate no flange was used on the abrasive wheel in question.  The 
wheel label and information in the investigative report show the wheel used at the 
time of the accident was ‘rubberized abrasive’ wheel with uses for ‘light deburring, 
smoothing, and polishing.’  The wheel label contains language very similar to the 
requirements of the Safety Code.  It states ‘wheel flanges must be one-third the 
diameter of the wheel.’  Therefore, the manufacturer contemplated the use of the 
‘abrasive wheel’ in question only with the additional use of ‘flanges’ for safety 
3 
purposes.  There was some evidence introduced that the employer provided flanges 
for use with this type of wheel and hand-held grinder.  However, they permitted 
their employees to use the machinery and wheels without accompanying flanges.  
The claimant testified he was never instructed on the use of flanges and that 
flanges had never been used on this type of abrasive wheel * * * .  It is the finding 
that the lack of using these flanges was a proximate cause of this injury in question 
and a Violation of Specific Ohio Administrative Safety Code Standard. 
 
“The next section cited was 4121:1-5-12(D)(4)(a).  This safety code 
provisions states the following: 
 
“ ‘(4)  Mounting 
 
“ ‘(a)  Inspection. 
 
“ ‘Immediately before mounting, all wheels shall be closely inspected and 
sounded by the employer or a designated employee (ring test) to make sure they 
have not been damaged in transit, storage, or otherwise.  The spindle speed of the 
machine shall be checked before mounting of the wheel to be certain that it does 
not exceed the maximum operating speed marked on the wheel.  Wheels shall be 
tapped gently with a light non-metallic implement * * * .  I[f] they sound cracked 
(dead)[,] they shall not be used.  This is known as the ‘ring test.’ * * * 
 
“ * * * [T]here was also a safety violation of this section.  The ‘ring test’ 
would not be a requirement in that the composition of the abrasive wheel in 
question has a ‘rubberized’ base.  However, the section also requires close 
inspection by the ‘employer’ or ‘designated employee’ which was not conducted 
by the employer of record.  This section additionally requires ‘the spindle speed of 
the machine shall be checked before mounting of the wheel to be certain it does not 
exceed the maximum operating speed marked on the wheel.[’]  The evidence 
including [the] aforementioned statements and descriptive materials * * * gave the 
R.P.M. of the hand grinder was [sic] either 19,000 R.P.M. or 28,750 R.P.M.[,] 
4 
whereas the maximum allowable R.P.M. of the rubberized grinding wheel was 
only 10,500 R.P.M.  This discrepancy in the R.P.M. between grinder and guiding 
[sic] wheel was a violation of the safety code and the direct responsibility of the 
employer of record.  This safety violation was the proximate cause of the injuries 
of record.” 
 
Rehearing was denied. 
 
Hirschvogel filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in granting 
claimant’s VSSR application.  The court of appeals disagreed and denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease and Theodore P. Mattis, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Cheryl J. Nester, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellees Industrial Commission of Ohio and Bureau of 
Workers’ Compensation. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  The commission’s order contains an accurate recitation of the 
two specific safety requirements currently at issue — Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-
12(D)(3)(a)(i) and (4)(a).  Hirschvogel does not dispute noncompliance with these 
specific safety requirements.  The Cratex 203-A grinding wheel was not attached 
to the wheel armature with flanges, and the wheel’s maximum rated speed was 
greatly exceeded by the minimum speed of the grinder. 
 
Hirschvogel instead attempts to excuse its noncompliance by asserting that 
the provisions do not apply.  Alternatively, it alleges that claimant acted 
negligently, thereby shielding Hirschvogel from liability.  Neither contention is 
persuasive. 
 
The employer’s initial argument is directed primarily to Ohio Adm.Code 
5 
4121:1-5-12(D)(4)(a).  Hirschvogel argues that because the rubberized nature of 
the grinding wheel made it unconducive to “ring testing,” it was not encompassed 
by section (D)(4)(a).  We disagree. 
 
Claimant’s accident demonstrates the dangers of using a grinding wheel 
incapable of handling the R.P.M.s produced by the grinder.  Yet Hirschvogel 
essentially argues that wheel/grinder incompatibility is somehow ameliorated by a 
wheel’s inability to emit a ringing sound when tapped.  We cannot ratify this 
premise.  Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-12 applies to “abrasive grinding and * * * 
polishing * * * equipment.”  Hirschvogel itself describes the equipment at issue as 
a “rubberized abrasive disc.”  We find, therefore, that the commission did not 
abuse its discretion in applying Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-12(D)(4)(a) and in 
finding a violation of this section. 
 
Hirschvogel also alleges that claimant was negligent in not using approved 
safety glasses and that this negligence immunizes it from penalty.  Claimant’s 
alleged negligence, however, even if it existed, is a defense only where the 
employer has first complied with the relevant safety requirement.  See State ex rel. 
Frank Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 162, 524 N.E.2d 
482.  Here, Hirschvogel did not satisfy either requirement at issue, negating our 
need to explore its assertion further. 
 
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.