Title: State ex rel. Ruscilli Constr. Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Ruscilli Constr. Co., Inc. v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1588.] 
 
 
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. 2012-OHIO-1588 
THE STATE EX REL. RUSCILLI CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., APPELLEE, v. 
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE; BARNO, APPELLANT. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Ruscilli Constr. Co., Inc. v. Indus. Comm.,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-1588.] 
Workers’ compensation—Court of appeals correctly concluded decision could not 
be upheld when order was premised on mistakes of fact and law—Court of 
appeals’ judgment affirmed. 
(No. 2010-1614—Submitted February 7, 2012—Decided April 12, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 09AP-1006, 2010-Ohio-4126. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, David D. Barno, has alleged that he was injured as a 
result of appellee Ruscilli Construction Company’s violation of a specific safety 
requirement (“VSSR”) pertaining to floor openings on construction sites.  His 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
application for additional workers’ compensation benefits for that alleged 
violation is now at issue. 
{¶ 2} Barno was hired as a laborer by Skilled Trades Industrial 
Maintenance, an employment agency that assigns temporary workers to 
construction projects.  In September 2007, he was assigned to a building 
renovation project overseen by Ruscilli. 
{¶ 3} Workers familiar with the site knew that the first floor had 
numerous openings in the concrete that presumably went down to a basement or 
sub-basement.  Barno, however, was new to the project.  Three days into his 
assignment, he was told to remove pieces of wood that had been left on the floor 
by the night crew.  One of those pieces was a 3-foot square, ¾-inch-thick 
plywood board.  Barno stooped down to grab it, not knowing that a 15-foot-deep 
hole lay beneath.  He lost his balance while lifting the board and fell into the hole, 
sustaining massive face and head injuries as a result. 
{¶ 4} After a workers’ compensation claim was allowed, Barno filed an 
application for additional compensation1 with appellee Industrial Commission of 
Ohio, alleging a violation of Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-04(D): 
 
(1) Floor openings  
Floor openings shall be guarded by a standard guard railing 
and toeboard or a cover with a safety factor of no less than two and 
so constructed that the cover cannot be accidentally displaced.  A 
safety belt or harness with a lanyard may be provided in lieu of a 
standard guard railing and toeboard or cover. 
 
                                                 
1  Barno filed his application against both Skilled Trades and Ruscilli (as the situs employer), 
which is permissible under State ex rel. Newman v. Indus. Comm., 77 Ohio St.3d 271, 673 N.E.2d 
1301 (1997). Barno apparently settled his claim with Skilled Trades, making Ruscilli the sole 
employer involved in this VSSR action.   
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
{¶ 5} In proceedings before a commission staff hearing officer (“SHO”), 
two Ruscilli employees described the safety measures that the company used to 
protect workers from the hazards presented by the building’s floor openings.  
Foreman Jeremy Crawford and corporate safety officer Deborah Webb stated that 
openings were typically covered with a ¾-inch plywood sheet.  Generally, holes 
were covered with a single sheet of ply, but two sheets were sometimes used in 
areas with motorized-equipment traffic. 
{¶ 6} These plywood sheets, whether single or double, were secured to 
the floor in each corner by “Hilti pins.”  These “pins” were actually special nails 
that could be shot through wood and into concrete by a powerful nail gun.  Once 
fastened, it was standard practice to kick the sheet on two of the sides to ensure 
that it did not slide or otherwise dislodge.  A properly secured board, according to 
Webb, took considerable effort to remove, and even deliberate attempts to lift it 
involved exertion. 
{¶ 7} Crawford testified that the area where Barno was hurt was off 
limits to motorized equipment, meaning that all floor openings were covered by a 
single sheet of plywood.  He stated that this particular board originally had the 
word “hole” painted on it in bold bright letters.  He conceded, however, that on 
the date of injury, the board was dirty and the letters might have been unreadable.  
Crawford could not remember the last time that he had kick-tested that particular 
board prior to the accident, but said that there were Hilti pins sticking out of the 
ply when he saw it after Barno fell. 
{¶ 8} Barno’s testimony contradicted the testimony of Ruscilli’s 
witnesses.  Barno indicated that the hole was covered by two stacked pieces of 
plywood and that the top one looked brand new.  He stated that he removed the 
first one without effort, dumped it, and returned for the second.  He saw no 
painted warning on the second board, which he claimed lifted without resistance. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 9} The SHO found that Ruscilli had violated Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-
3-04(D)(1):  
 
The Injured Worker cites O.A.C. 4121:3-04 [sic 4123:1-
3-04] (A) and (D)(1), regarding the protection of floors and 
guarding of openings.  The rule applies “* * * to temporary 
conditions where there is danger of employees or material falling 
through the floor, roof or wall openings * * *.” He specifically 
cites paragraph (D)(1) which states: “floor openings shall be 
guarded by a standard guard railing and toeboard or cover.  
Standard guard railing and toeboard shall be provided on all 
exposed sides * * *.” 
Based upon the Injured Worker’s testimony, it is found 
that the hole was only covered with a single piece of plywood 
that had no indication on or around it that a hole was underneath.  
The Employer’s safety representative presented pictures of a 
board that had the word “HOLE” written on it in large red letters.  
She stated that it is the Employer’s custom to put two pieces of 
plywood over every hole, with the top piece having the word 
“hole” written boldly and clearly on it. 
It is found that if two pieces of plywood were over the 
hole, the Injured Worker would not have fallen through, since he 
only lifted one piece.  Further, whether or not the word “hole” 
was written on the plywood, it did not serve to deter the Injured 
Worker from picking it up.  The picture that the Employer 
submits at hearing (exhibit A) contains the word “hole” on it, but 
it is not clearly visible because of the many shoes, boots, and 
equipment pieces that have partially obscured the word. 
January Term, 2012 
5 
 
The Employer further stated that the two pieces of 
plywood were nailed in place with two-inch nails.  Again, this is 
not found to be an effective way of guarding the hole.  Each 
board was approximately ⅝” deep, which means that two of them 
would take up 1¼” of a 2” nail.  Approximately ¾” of the nail 
was left to secure the boards to the ground.  Considering that the 
ground was merely compacted dirt that could shift because of the 
hole adjacent to it, or that a rainy day could cause the cover to be 
less secure than usual, it is found that the plywood cover of a hole 
that was big enough for a man to fall through was ineffective.  It 
is noted that the picture of a plywood board * * * does not have 
any holes at the corners where nails were once used to secure it. 
 
{¶ 10} Ruscilli unsuccessfully sought reconsideration, claiming that the 
SHO’s order was based on several obvious mistakes of fact.  Ruscilli then filed a 
complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that 
the commission had abused its discretion in finding a VSSR.  The court found that 
the order misinterpreted the applicable safety requirement and that it was based on 
significant mistakes of fact.  It vacated the order and returned the cause to the 
commission for further consideration and an amended order. 
{¶ 11} This cause is now before this court on Barno’s appeal as a matter 
of right. 
{¶ 12} The court of appeals concluded that the SHO’s order was premised 
on two significant mistakes of fact.  We find that the SHO’s order contains at least 
four major errors involving both law and fact.  The result is a narrative that has no 
basis in fact and an analysis premised on findings that lack evidentiary support.  
The court of appeals correctly concluded that the decision cannot be upheld. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
{¶ 13} The most glaring error is a legal one.  According to the SHO, Ohio 
Adm. Code 4123:1-3-04(D)(1) provides that “floor openings shall be guarded by 
a standard guard railing and toeboard or cover.  Standard guard railing and 
toeboard shall be provided on all exposed sides * * *.”  That is not, however, 
what the provision says. Ohio Adm.Code 4123:1-3-04(D)(1) actually reads: 
 
Floor openings shall be guarded by a standard guard railing 
and toeboard or a cover with a safety factor of no less than two and 
so constructed that the cover cannot be accidentally displaced.  A 
safety belt or harness with a lanyard may be provided in lieu of a 
standard guard railing and toeboard or cover. 
 
{¶ 14} This error is critical, because the key question in this case is 
whether the plywood in question could be accidentally displaced.  The SHO’s 
version of the specific safety regulation does not even recognize the ease of 
displacement as part of the regulation. 
{¶ 15} The remaining errors are factual and involve almost every fact that 
is material.  These errors, in turn, fatally distort the SHO’s analysis.  She, for 
example, concluded that Ruscilli’s safety measures were inadequate because they 
did not take into consideration the unstable nature of the building’s dirt floor.  The 
building, however, did not have a dirt floor; it was solid concrete. 
{¶ 16} The SHO also stated that according to Barno, the hole was covered 
by a single piece of plywood.  She criticized Ruscilli for failing to follow its 
customary practice of covering holes with two sheets of plywood and concluded 
that the accident would not have occurred if Ruscilli had done so.  These 
statements, however, are all untrue.  Ruscilli’s usual practice was to cover holes 
with one piece of plywood, not two, so the purported deviation from custom that 
the SHO decried did not occur.  Barno, moreover, consistently stated that the hole 
January Term, 2012 
7 
 
was covered by two plywood sheets.  This invalidates the SHO’s assertion that if 
two boards had been used, the accident would have been prevented. 
{¶ 17} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Wiles, Boyle, Burkholder & Bringardner Co., L.P.A., and J. Miles Gibson, 
for appellee Ruscilli Construction Company, Inc. 
Heinzerling Law Office and Mark Heinzerling, for appellant. 
______________________