Case Title: State ex rel. Penwell v. Indus. Comm’n

Citation: 2015-Ohio-976

Docket Number: 2013-0624

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-03-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Penwell v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-976.] 
 
 
 
 
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. 2015-OHIO-976 
THE STATE EX REL. PENWELL, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Penwell v. Indus. Comm.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-976.] 
Workers’ compensation—Violation of specific safety requirement—Crushing 
injury caused by press—Pullback restraints—Safety device was 
appropriate under rule—No evidence of defect or previous malfunction—
One-time failure of safety device cannot support additional award for 
violation of specific safety requirement—Safety device need not be 
completely fail-safe. 
(No. 2013-0624—Submitted January 13, 2015—Decided March 19, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 11AP-936, 2013-Ohio-1244. 
_____________________ 
 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in this challenge to 
the denial of an additional award for violation of a specific safety requirement 
(“VSSR”) in the workers’ compensation system.  The relator-appellant, Cathy S. 
Penwell, challenged the decision of respondent-appellee Industrial Commission 
(“commission”) when it denied her application for a VSSR award against her 
employer, respondent-appellee Amanda Bent Bolt Company (“ABB”). 
{¶ 2} Penwell alleges that her injuries were caused by ABB’s failure to 
provide adequate safety restraints under the applicable safety rule.  The 
commission denied Penwell’s VSSR application on the basis that her injuries 
were caused by a one-time failure of the safety devices.  The court of appeals 
found that the commission had not abused its discretion and denied a writ of 
mandamus. 
{¶ 3} We affirm. 
Facts and procedural posture 
{¶ 4} Penwell was employed as a press operator for ABB. She produced 
various metal parts using a 75-ton Bliss OBI hydraulic press.  On May 18, 2007, 
Penwell was injured when her left hand was crushed in the press.  Her workers’ 
compensation claim was allowed for various serious injuries to her left hand, 
including multiple fractures and the amputation of fingers, as well as for 
posttraumatic stress and depression. 
{¶ 5} The machine Penwell was operating had what is termed a pullback 
restraint system.  Two cables, one for each of the operator’s hands, are attached to 
the top of the press.  A safety bar is also attached to each side of the press.  The 
operator wears wrist restraints attached to the cables.  When the ram descends on 
the press, the cables, operating on a pulley system, pull the operator’s hands out 
of the point of operation. 
January Term, 2015 
3 
 
{¶ 6} ABB held monthly safety meetings for employees, which Penwell 
attended.  Each safety meeting had a typed agenda, which included a printed 
reminder that operators were not to rely solely on the safety pullbacks to keep 
their hands out of a machine.  The rationale for this warning was that any 
mechanical device can fail. 
{¶ 7} On the day of the injury, another worker, Donald Coe, ran the 
machine in question, No. 885, before Penwell. He checked the pullback cables to 
ensure that they were not worn and that the screws were tight.  He worked for 
over two hours and could detect nothing wrong with the equipment.  Gary Lama, 
a cell leader at ABB, asserted that he could not remember any trouble with 
machine No. 885, and the safety pullbacks have always been in good shape. 
{¶ 8} The pullback restraint system was then adjusted specifically for 
Penwell by Thomas Payne, a “set-up man” for ABB.  Payne set the safety cables 
on the machine for Penwell by moving her back two links on the safety chains, as 
her reach was greater than Coe’s.  Her hands were even with each other when 
Payne finished the adjustments.  Payne watched Penwell run two parts on the 
machine to make sure that she could get the parts out of the die.  He noted nothing 
unusual with the safety devices on her machine. 
{¶ 9} After Payne had set up the machine, Penwell punched holes in five 
parts. She then performed a required quality-control inspection of the parts.  To 
do so, she had to leave the machine, which meant she had to unhook her wrist 
restraints from the cables. After she completed the quality-control check, she 
rehooked the cable restraints and ran a number of parts through the machine.  At 
some point, the ram descended on Penwell’s left hand, causing the injuries. 
{¶ 10} After the injury, ABB investigated the accident.  The investigation 
revealed that the weld on the left-side safety bar was broken, and the bar was bent 
up.  Polly Puterbaugh, personnel director of ABB, testified that bending the safety 
bar would take a “strenuous” force.  She testified that the safety cables are “like 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
airplane cables,” and it was most likely that one of the cables had become 
wrapped around the bar and caused the damage.  She also testified that May 18, 
2007, was the first time in her 38 years at ABB that there had ever been a 
malfunction of the safety guards on No. 885.  Nor had there ever been an instance, 
on any press, of a safety cable from a pullback restraint wrapping around a safety 
bar or a weld on a safety bar breaking, allowing the bar to be bent upward. 
{¶ 11} In addition to her workers’ compensation benefits, Penwell applied 
for a VSSR award. The commission, through its staff hearing officer (“SHO”), 
considered the application on December 14, 2010.  Based on the testimony that 
ABB had never seen or been advised of a safety bar being bent in the manner 
described here, the SHO found that the accident was a one-time malfunction of 
the pullback system.  The SHO also found that there was no evidence that the 
press had double-tripped or that there was any other mechanical defect with the 
press. 
{¶ 12} The SHO concluded that that there was no evidence of a VSSR.  
Penwell had alleged violations of Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-01(B)(105) and 
4123:1-5-11(E).  The SHO found that the first regulation is merely definitional 
and therefore does not state a specific safety requirement.  The SHO also found 
that under Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-11(E), which concerns hydraulic or 
pneumatic presses, a pullback system is one of the acceptable ways to guard a 
hydraulic press.  The SHO further found that there is no requirement that a safety 
device must be completely fail-safe.  The commission denied Penwell’s request 
for reconsideration, and she filed a complaint in mandamus in the Tenth District 
Court of Appeals. 
{¶ 13} The magistrate for the court of appeals considered the two issues 
Penwell raised: (1) whether the commission’s application of the “single failure” 
exception to VSSR liability is precluded by evidence that ABB repeatedly 
informed its operators not to rely on the pullback guards and (2) whether ABB 
January Term, 2015 
5 
 
failed to guard the press because it did not provide a set-up person to assist the 
operator in unhooking and rehooking the pullback guards during quality-control 
inspections.  The magistrate found that the single-failure exception was not 
precluded by the information given to the operators and that ABB did not fail to 
guard the press by not providing a set-up person to assist the operator in the 
manner advocated by Penwell. 
{¶ 14} Specifically, as to the first issue, the magistrate concluded that 
ABB’s safety meetings and its warnings that employees not rely solely on the 
pullback system were components of a good safety policy, not evidence that ABB 
either knew that the pullback system would fail or had such concerns about the 
system that it should have explored other methods of protecting the operator. 
{¶ 15} As to the second issue, the magistrate agreed with the SHO’s 
determination that a set-up person did not have to be present whenever an 
operator unhooked and rehooked, because the initial adjustment would remain the 
same. Moreover, the safety rule itself does not demand that a set-up person be 
present for the quality-control step. 
{¶ 16} Penwell filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, but the court 
of appeals overruled the objections, adopted the magistrate’s decision, and denied 
the writ.  Penwell appealed to this court. 
Analysis 
{¶ 17} To establish entitlement to a VSSR award, a claimant must show 
that there is a specific safety rule (“SSR”) applicable to the employer, that the 
employer violated that SSR, and that the violation 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.  The interpretation of the SSR rests with the 
commission. State ex rel. Berry v. Indus. Comm., 4 Ohio St.3d 193, 194, 448 
N.E.2d 134 (1983).  But because a VSSR award is a penalty, the commission 
must resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the employer.  State ex rel. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
Richmond v. Indus. Comm., 139 Ohio St.3d 157, 2014-Ohio-1604, 10 N.E.3d 683, 
¶ 17; State ex rel. Burton v. Indus. Comm., 46 Ohio St.3d 170, 172, 545 N.E.2d 
1216 (1989). 
{¶ 18} The only SSR at issue is Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-11(E), which 
includes a “pull guard” as an acceptable safety device for a hydraulic press: 
 
Hydraulic or pneumatic presses. 
Every hydraulic or pneumatic (air-powered) press shall be 
constructed, or shall be guarded, to prevent the hands or fingers of 
the operator from entering the danger zone during the operating 
cycle. Acceptable methods of guarding are: 
(1) “Fixed barrier guard” - an enclosure to prevent hands or 
fingers from entering the danger zone; 
(2) “Gate guard” - a movable gate operated with a tripping 
device to interpose a barrier between the operator and the danger 
zone and to remain closed until the down stroke has been 
completed; 
(3) “Two-hand control” - an actuating device which 
requires the simultaneous use of both hands outside the danger 
zone during the entire closing cycle of the press; 
(4) Pull guard - attached to hands or wrists and activated 
by closing of press so that movement of the ram will pull the 
operator’s hands from the danger zone during the operating cycle; 
(5) Restraint or hold-back guard - with attachments to the 
hands or wrists of the operator to prevent hands or fingers entering 
the danger zone during the operating cycle; 
(6) Other practices, means or methods which will provide 
safeguards, preventing the hands or fingers of the operator from 
January Term, 2015 
7 
 
entering the danger zone during the operating cycle and which are 
equivalent in result to one of the types specified above. 
 
(Emphasis added.)   
{¶ 19} Penwell was operating a hydraulic press that was equipped with a 
pullback restraint system to pull the operator’s hands out of the danger zone 
during the operating cycle, as described in Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-11(E)(4).  
The press in question was therefore equipped with an acceptable safety device 
under the regulation. 
{¶ 20} Penwell suggests that ABB had a duty to determine whether there 
were more effective safety devices for the press.  However, an allegation that an 
employer has violated a duty to its employees cannot justify a VSSR award unless 
the SSR plainly apprises the employer of that duty. A VSSR award is given only 
when an employer’s acts contravene express, specific, and definite statutory or 
regulatory provisions.  State ex rel. Trydle v. Indus. Comm., 32 Ohio St.2d 257, 
291 N.E.2d 748 (1972), paragraph one of the syllabus. 
{¶ 21} ABB used an approved guard for its hydraulic press.  That is the 
only duty imposed by the SSR.  Therefore, the mere fact that there might be some 
other or better guarding mechanism for the press is immaterial. 
{¶ 22} Penwell’s primary argument is that the commission’s decision was 
based solely on the “one-time malfunction” defense and was not supported by 
evidence in the record.  The one-time-malfunction defense comes from our 
holding in State ex rel. M.T.D. Prods., Inc. v. Stebbins, 43 Ohio St.2d 114, 118, 
330 N.E.2d 904 (1975), in which we observed that a safety rule “does not purport 
to impose absolute liability for an additional award whenever a safety device fails. 
The regulation does not forewarn the employer that, in addition to providing a 
safety device, the safety device must also be completely failsafe.”  Thus, “[t]he 
fact that a safety device that otherwise complies with the safety regulations failed 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
on a single occasion is not alone sufficient to find that the safety regulation was 
violated.”  Id.  Citing M.T.D. Prods., we have recognized the “one-time 
malfunction” exception or defense on several occasions.  State ex rel. Gentzler 
Tool & Die Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 18 Ohio St.3d 103, 480 N.E.2d 397 (1985); 
State ex rel. Taylor v. Indus. Comm., 70 Ohio St.3d 445, 639 N.E.2d 101 (1994). 
Under this exception, the question before the commission is “whether [the 
employer] had ever been forewarned of the malfunction on the date of injury by a 
prior malfunction of the safety device.” State ex rel. Precision Thermo-
Components, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-965, 2011-
Ohio-1333, ¶ 29.  Therefore, the question here is whether there was evidence of a 
prior history of malfunctions or problems such that ABB should have been aware 
that a malfunction would occur. 
{¶ 23} The evidence shows that the pullback safety system was in good 
working order on the date of the accident.  Another worker, Donald Coe, operated 
the machine earlier that same day.  He checked the pullback cables and checked 
that all the screws were tight.  He did not detect any problem with the safety 
equipment.  Thomas Payne then adjusted the safety cables specifically for 
Penwell and noticed nothing out of the ordinary.  Penwell ran five parts through 
the press with no incident before unhooking the cables to perform a quality-
control check.  She then reattached the pullback guards and ran more parts before 
the injury occurred.  Moreover, ABB provided evidence that similar presses had 
been operated for at least 38 years without a single failure of a pullback guard. 
{¶ 24} Penwell argues that because ABB trained its employees not to rely 
solely on the pullbacks to keep their hands safe, ABB somehow knew that the 
safety pullbacks would someday fail.  However, unlike in some of the cases cited 
by Penwell, the unrefuted evidence here is that the safety pullbacks had never 
failed or malfunctioned on the press in question, nor had ABB been aware of any 
pullback malfunction on any of its presses for nearly four decades. 
January Term, 2015 
9 
 
{¶ 25} Safety regulations do not impose strict liability on employers 
whenever a safety device fails.  “[T]he purpose of specific safety requirements [is 
to provide] reasonable, not absolute, safety for employees. Decisions of this court 
have acknowledged the practical impossibility of guaranteeing that a device will 
protect against all contingencies or will never fail.” (Emphasis sic.)  State ex rel. 
Jeep Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 42 Ohio St.3d 83, 84, 537 N.E.2d 215 (1989). 
{¶ 26} Moreover, we reject Penwell’s argument that a set-up person 
should have supervised her when she put the pullbacks back on after performing 
the quality-control check.  Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-5-11(E) does not specify any 
particular training or supervision for an employee’s use of the pullback restraints.  
The SSR does not impose a duty of constant surveillance over the equipment.  
State ex rel. Frank Brown & Sons, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 37 Ohio St.3d 162, 164, 
524 N.E.2d 482 (1988). The set-up man in this case correctly adjusted the 
pullbacks to fit Penwell’s size and reach and watched her run several parts to 
confirm the adjustment.  The commission reasonably concluded that he did not 
need to be present when Penwell unhooked and rehooked the restraints. 
{¶ 27} Finally, Penwell argues that the court of appeals and its magistrate 
improperly reweighed the evidence.  However, the magistrate and court of 
appeals merely reviewed the evidence in a proper effort to determine whether 
there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the commission’s 
conclusion that the failure that caused Penwell’s injury was a one-time 
occurrence. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 28} The pullback guards on the press that Penwell was operating when 
she was injured are an acceptable safety mechanism under the rule.  ABB was 
correctly allowed to use the one-time-malfunction defense because there was no 
indication of any malfunction on the day of the injury and there was evidence in 
the record that no malfunction of similar devices at ABB had occurred in at least 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
 
38 years.  The commission did not abuse its discretion in denying a VSSR award, 
and the court of appeals did not reweigh the evidence or otherwise improperly 
review the case. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
_____________________ 
 
Reminger Co., L.P.A., and Kevin R. Sanislo, for appellant. 
 
Hahn, Loeser & Parks, L.L.P., and Douglas J. Suter, for appellee Amanda 
Bent Bolt Company. 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Cheryl J. Nester, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
_____________________