Title: State ex rel. AK Steel Corp. v. Davis

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. AK Steel Corp. v. Davis, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5865.] 
 
 
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. 2009-OHIO-5865 
THE STATE EX REL. AK STEEL CORPORATION, APPELLANT, v. DAVIS ET AL., 
APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. AK Steel Corp. v. Davis,  
Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5865.] 
Workers’ compensation — Violation of specific safety requirement — Former 
rule’s definition of “feed rolls” strictly construed in favor of employer. 
(No. 2008-1962 — Submitted September 15, 2009 — Decided  
November 12, 2009.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 07AP-687,  
2008-Ohio-452. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, AK Steel Corporation, challenges appellee Industrial 
Commission of Ohio’s determination that it violated a specific safety requirement 
that caused appellee Cheryl L. Davis’s injury.  Davis was hurt on a mill that 
tempered coils of stainless steel. An expert described the mill: 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
{¶ 2} “This unit consists of two unguarded counter-rotating work rolls 
which receive coil stock from a payoff reel, pulls it in and rolls it to improve the 
hardness and surface finish.  After going through the work rolls the stack is 
rewound on the recoiler.” 
{¶ 3} The payoff reel was on the mill’s entry side, where the operator’s 
helper typically stood.  The opening on this side was 32 inches wide and 38 ½ 
inches high, and the distance from the payoff reel to the work rolls was 
approximately 43 inches.  The work rolls were separated from the payoff reel by a 
large board that, in some respects, resembled a table.  Its main function is not 
certain from the record, but it is clear that, secondarily, it prevented anyone from 
moving or standing between the payoff reel and the work rolls. 
{¶ 4} The two work rolls were stacked vertically.  The distance between 
the two was less than the thickness of the steel sheeting, so the steel was tempered 
as it passed through.  The two rolls were powered by a 350- horsepower mill drive 
on the bottom roll.  There was no permanent motor on the top roll, but a drive 
shaft could be inserted to allow the operator to jog the rolls if necessary.  The 
recoiler was independently powered by a 100- horsepower tension drive. 
{¶ 5} The mill had two operating modes.  When the mill was in polish 
mode, the two work rolls were outrunning. This made it impossible for a person to 
be caught between the mill’s work rolls.  When in production, i.e., tempering, 
mode, the two work rolls were inrunning, which created a nip point approximately 
46 inches from the payoff reel.  The configuration of the machine and the 
presence of the board suggested that the nip point was not easily accessible, but it 
is undisputed that it was not guarded. 
{¶ 6} The mill, when in production mode, could move between 250 and 
500 feet of steel per minute, which created an inadvertent hazard.  At that speed, it 
was extremely difficult to see that the rolls were moving because the surface of 
the rolls was so uniform and reflective.  As one operator stated, it looked like 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
“two mirrors turning.”  The machine, moreover, was silent when it was running.  
Operator Scott McKee described his experience with the temper mill: 
{¶ 7} “You’ve got to remember that those rolls are turning because there 
is no buzz, no bells, no noise. 
{¶ 8} “You can walk by, you can look and, if they don’t have – there’s 
[sic] no marks, nothing to let you know but your own experience that you’ve 
turned that [sic] rolls on. * * * [Y]ou always have to be aware.” 
{¶ 9} Two people were routinely assigned to the mill — an operator and 
a helper.  One of the operator’s key responsibilities was to make sure that the 
work rolls were always clean, and there were two approved ways to clean them.  
One was to reverse the rolls’ direction by putting the mill in polish mode and then 
using a long squeegee to remove the impurity.  The other was to turn the mill off 
and to wipe away any spot by hand.  Under no circumstances was an employee 
ever to touch a moving work roll with his or her hand. 
{¶ 10} On November 13, 2002, McKee was assigned to operate the mill, 
and Davis was assigned as his helper.  The two were preparing for the shift’s first 
production run when Davis apparently turned from the mill to grab her coffee.  At 
the same time, McKee turned the mill on in production mode and immediately 
commented that there was a spot on one of the work rolls.  Davis, unaware that 
the mill was on, grabbed a rag and, in her own words, “stood on [her] tiptoes and 
leaned in and attempted to wipe [the spot] off.”  Before McKee could yell a 
warning, the inrunning rolls grabbed the rag and, with it, Davis’s hand.  McKee 
immediately hit the emergency stop, but it was too late to prevent injury. 
{¶ 11} After her workers’ compensation claim was allowed, Davis filed 
an application for additional compensation, ultimately alleging that AK Steel had 
violated a specific safety regulation that required that “[p]ower-driven feed rolls, 
when exposed to contact, shall be guarded so as to prevent the hands of the 
operator from coming into contact with the in-running rolls at any point.” See 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Bulletin 203, Section 207, in effect when the mill was installed.  Because the nip 
point was not guarded, the commission granted Davis’s application and denied 
rehearing. 
{¶ 12} AK Steel filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals 
for Franklin County.  The parties debated, among other things, whether the mill’s 
two work rolls were “feed rolls” as defined in Bulletin 203, Section 2.8. That 
provision defined “feed rolls” as “rolls which perform no other function than to 
feed material to the point of operation.” (Emphasis added.) AK Steel offered two 
responses, one of which was that because the work rolls also tempered the steel as 
it passed through, the rolls were not the single-function apparatus defined in 
Section 2.8. 
{¶ 13} The court of appeals acknowledged that the rolls performed two 
functions.  It held, however, that this court’s 1984 decision in State ex rel. Harris 
v. Indus. Comm. (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 152,  12 OBR 223, 465 N.E.2d 1286, 
expanded the definition of “feed rolls” to include rolls that performed a dual or 
secondary function.  The writ was denied, and AK Steel has appealed to this court 
as a matter of right. 
{¶ 14} The court of appeals acknowledged that the work rolls performed 
more than one function but considered that to be immaterial based on Harris.  The 
appeals court interpreted Harris as expanding Bulletin 203’s definition of feed 
rolls to encompass rolls that had multiple functions.  AK Steel has now appealed 
as a matter of right, and we now take this opportunity to clarify Harris. 
{¶ 15} Harris was injured while cleaning an offset printing press.  He 
applied for additional compensation, asserting that his employer had violated 
Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-05(H), a successor version of the specific safety 
requirement now at issue.  The commission denied his application after finding 
that the ink rolls were not feed rolls because they performed more than one 
function. This court on appeal acknowledged both that a feed roll, by definition, 
January Term, 2009 
5 
 
could perform just one function and that the ink rolls had multiple functions, but it 
nevertheless characterized the ink rolls as feed rolls: 
{¶ 16} “This, [appellees] contend, illustrates a secondary function which, 
according to Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-10(B)(13), feed rolls cannot perform. 
{¶ 17} “Appellant [claimant] submits that the clear facts of the case 
illustrate that the ink rolls are, in fact, feed rolls.  We agree.  Ohio Adm.Code 
4121:1-5-10(B)(43) defines the ‘point of operation’ as ‘the area of the press where 
material is actually positioned and work is being performed during any process, * 
* *.’  This definition, although referring particularly to mechanical power presses, 
provides a more sensible approach to the problem presented by the facts of the 
instant appeal.  The ink rolls in question clearly feed material to the area of the 
press where work is being performed during the printing process. 
{¶ 18} “The commission has the discretion to interpret its own rules; 
however, where the application of those rules to a unique factual situation gives 
rise to a patently illogical result, common sense should prevail.  Appellant’s 
contention that Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-05(H) was violated is well supported 
by the facts.  The commission abused its discretion in determining otherwise.” 
Harris, 12 Ohio St.3d at 153, 12 OBR 223, 465 N.E.2d 1286. 
{¶ 19} Contrary to the court of appeals’ interpretation, Harris did not 
expand the single-function requirement; it never substantively addressed it, 
choosing instead to rely on an inapplicable definition of “point of operation,” 
from which it concluded that the ink rolls were feed rolls. This reasoning violated 
three key tenets.  First, it did not strictly construe the specific safety requirement 
against its applicability to the employer. A VSSR is a penalty, and hence any 
doubts concerning the applicability of a specific safety requirement must be 
resolved in the employer’s favor.  State ex rel. Burton v. Indus. Comm. (1989), 46 
Ohio St.3d 170, 172, 545 N.E.2d 146.  Second, by failing to address the exclusion 
of dual-function rolls from the definition of “feed rolls,” the Harris court did not 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
construe the requirement in a way that would have plainly apprised the 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, paragraph one of the syllabus.  
Obviously, when a requirement clearly confines protection to a single-function 
machine, an employer with a multifunction machine would have no expectation 
that the requirement also covers it.  Finally, Harris in effect deleted language 
from the administrative rule when it ignored the single-function limitation of the 
definition. This, too, was improper. State ex rel. Lee v. Karnes, 103 Ohio St.3d 
559, 2004-Ohio-5718, 817 N.E.2d 76, ¶ 25-27. 
{¶ 20} We accordingly clarify that the limitation to a single function is 
still a part of the definition of “feed rolls” in Section 2.8 of Bulletin 203. The 
commission therefore abused its discretion in implicitly finding that the temper 
mill’s work rolls were “feed rolls.” 
{¶ 21} The judgment of the court of appeals is hereby reversed. We issue 
a writ of mandamus ordering the commission to vacate its order allowing a VSSR 
award and to issue an order denying the award. 
Judgment reversed 
and writ granted. 
 
MOYER, 
C.J., 
and 
PFEIFER, 
LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
Frost, Brown, Todd, L.L.C., Christine L. Robek, and Robert A. Dimling, 
for appellant. 
Stocker Pitts Co., L.P.A., Thomas R. Pitts, and M. Scott Kidd, for appellee 
Cheryl Davis. 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Sandra E. Pinkerton, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission. 
______________________