Title: State ex rel. Carder v. Indus. Comm.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Carder v. Indus. Comm., 94 Ohio St.3d 165, 2002-Ohio-344.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. CARDER, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF 
OHIO, APPELLEE, ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Carder v. Indus. Comm. (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 165.] 
Workers’ compensation — Industrial Commission did not abuse its discretion in 
denying VSSR claim when it refused to construe a skylight as a roof 
opening for purposes of former Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-04(D)(3). 
(No. 00-2226 — Submitted November 13, 2001 — Decided January 30, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 99AP-1169. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  On April 22, 1997, appellant-claimant, Gregory A. Carder, 
was working as a roofer for Colonial Builders, Inc. (“CBI”), reroofing a 
commercial building in Toledo, Ohio.  What happened in the late afternoon on 
that day is unclear.  Claimant stated that he lost his balance and fell through a 
skylight in the roof.  Another witness indicated that claimant was sitting on the 
skylight and it broke.  In any event, claimant was injured when he fell to the floor 
below. 
 
After his workers’ compensation claim was allowed, claimant moved 
appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio for additional compensation, alleging that 
CBI had violated former Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-04(D)(3), which stated: 
 
“(3) Roof openings 
 
“Wherever there is a danger of an employee falling through a roof 
opening, a standard guard railing and toeboard shall be provided on all exposed 
sides or a cover which provides a factor of safety of no less than four shall be 
provided.”  1979-1980 Ohio Monthly Record 4-32.  (The current version of the 
rule explicitly applies to skylights.  1998-1999 Ohio Monthly Record 847, eff. 
Apr. 1, 1999.) 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
The commission denied the application: 
 
“It is found that this claim and injury did not involve a ‘roof opening.’  
This was not a  new construction site, and claimant did fall through (and break) 
the existing skylight.  This provision for ‘roof openings’ would not adequately 
apprise the employer that a guard railing or a cover would be required to prevent a 
worker from falling thorough [sic] a skylight such as this. 
 
“As it has not been shown that a specific safety requirement applied to this 
injury and the facts in this case, the VSSR application must be denied.” 
 
Further hearing was denied. 
 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying his 
application.  The court of appeals disagreed, finding that the commission did not 
abuse its discretion in refusing to construe a skylight as a roof opening.  This 
cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
 
Two principles control.  First, specific safety requirements must contain 
specific and definite requirements of a character that plainly apprises an employer 
of its legal obligations.  State ex rel. Trydle v. Indus. Comm. (1972), 32 Ohio 
St.2d 257, 61 O.O.2d 488, 291 N.E.2d 748.  Second, because an award for a 
violation of a specific safety requirement is a penalty against the employer, all 
reasonable doubts regarding the applicability of the requirement must be resolved 
in the employer’s favor.  State ex rel. Burton v. Indus. Comm. (1989), 46 Ohio 
St.3d 170, 545 N.E.2d 1216. 
 
“Opening” is not defined by the safety code, leaving its interpretation to 
the commission.  Given the above principles, it was not an abuse of discretion for 
the commission to determine that a closed skylight did not constitute a roof 
opening for purposes of Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-3-04(D)(3).  As the the 
magistrate best observed: 
January Term, 2002 
3 
 
“The word ‘opening’ has been defined as a gap, hole, breach, aperture, 
open width, or open span.  See Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 
(1987), 826; Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (1995), 814.  There simply 
was no ‘opening’ for the employer to consider.  Whether a rule should exist that 
protects workers against weak portions of roofs is not before the court; the issue is 
simply whether the commission was within its discretion to conclude that the 
rules for ‘openings’ would not have placed the employer on notice of an 
obligation to guard the glassed portions of the roof.  The magistrate agrees that 
the plain meaning of ‘openings’ would not suggest to employers that they need to 
test coverings already in place and provide stronger ones where the existing 
coverings would not hold a certain amount of weight.” 
 
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. 
__________________ 
 
Gallon & Takacs Co., L.P.A., and Theodore A. Bowman, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Dennis L. Hufstader, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________