State ex rel. Harris v. Atlas Crankshaft Corp. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as State ex rel. Harris v. Atlas Crankshaft Corp, 90 Ohio St.3d 257, 2000-
Ohio-69.]

THE STATE EX REL. HARRIS, APPELLANT, v. ATLAS CRANKSHAFT CORPORATION ET
AL., APPELLEES.
[Cite as State ex rel. Harris v. Atlas Crankshaft Corp. (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 257.]
Workers' compensation -- Industrial Commission does not abuse its discretion
in denying a violation of specific safety requirement application when
order is supported by "some evidence" -- Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-
12(C)(1) requires instruction only on safe machine operation.
(No. 99-420 -- Submitted August 22, 2000 -- Decided November 8, 2000.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 97APD12-1715.

Appellant-claimant, Daniel C. Harris, Sr., was a long-time employee of
appellee Atlas Crankshaft Corporation ("Atlas"). Claimant's department
processed forged crankshafts into finished products. Among the machines used
was a fully automated monotonic crankshaft broaching machine ("broacher").

The broaching process essentially shaved the crankshaft's bearings, by
indexing a cutting carbide through a rotating crankshaft. The process started with
a hydraulic loading arm placing a crankshaft into the broacher. The loader then
released the part and returned to the up position.

Once the crankshaft was in place, it was clamped, and then rotated at a
high speed. While the crankshaft was rotating, a circular tool arbor equipped with
the carbide tools began a slow revolution around the spinning crankshaft. Near
the end of the revolution, the arbor cleared the crankshaft. The crankshaft then
stopped spinning, ideally in the index or home position, for removal by the
loading arm.

At this point, the access doors opened and the crankshaft was unclamped.
The arbor would continue the short remainder of its revolution, seeking its home
position. It is unclear from the record which return to home--the crankshaft's or

the arbor's--signaled the loading arm to descend. In any event, unloading
marked the completion of the cycle.

Of the four broachers in claimant's department, machine number four had,
for some time, intermittently malfunctioned. The exact frequency was unknown
but has been estimated at two to four times per shift.

The specifics of the malfunction differ depending on who was asked. The
parties seem to agree that the problem was caused when the tool arbor knocked
the crankshaft out of position. This would prevent the loader from removing the
part and completing the cycle, and could, said some, result in the loader
descending onto--and possibly damaging--the broacher's rollers and slides.

Atlas knew of the problem and had tried to fix it. Repair personnel,
however, could not diagnose the problem without actually seeing it occur.
Unfortunately, because of its infrequency, repairmen, although they tried, were
never at the right spot at the right time to catch the machine in the act of
malfunction.

As a result, Atlas trained its employees in a safe way to deal with the
malfunction. Employees were trained to switch the machine from automatic to
manual mode. The employee then inserted his or her arm into the broacher and
repositioned the crankshaft. All agree that it was impossible for the loader to
descend while the broacher was in manual.

Apparently, sometime in 1992, claimant's seniority prompted his transfer
to the number four broacher. Norman Musgrave, an Atlas employee familiar with
the broacher, was assigned to train claimant on the number four machine.
Claimant had at least one month of training, and, according to Musgrave, more
than double that. (Musgrave testified that he had previously trained claimant on
how to operate the machine for approximately one month.)

Musgrave explained to claimant that the machine occasionally
malfunctioned and instructed claimant--both verbally and through

2

demonstration--to put the broacher in manual mode before ever reaching into the
machine. At the end of the training session, claimant signed an "Operator['s]
Skills Checklist and Task Requirements" form that attested to claimant's
understanding of safety procedures involving the number four broacher.
Musgrave, however, expressed to supervisory personnel serious misgivings about
claimant's understanding of the complex machine and his ability to operate it.

On January 4, 1993, claimant began running the broacher. On April 14,
1993, the machine had apparently malfunctioned and claimant reached into the
machine to right a crankshaft without putting the broacher into manual. The
loader, in turn, lowered onto claimant's arm, causing severe injury.

After his workers' compensation claim was allowed, claimant applied for
additional compensation, alleging that Atlas had violated several specific safety
requirements ("VSSR"). Among those cited was Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-5-
12(C)(1), which required that "[t]he employer shall verbally and through
demonstration instruct the employee in the safe operation and maintenance of
abrasive grinding and cutting and polishing equipment."

At a July 16, 1996 hearing before a staff hearing officer ("SHO") of
appellee Industrial Commission of Ohio, claimant conceded that he had been
instructed, both verbally and through demonstration, on how to correct the
broacher's malfunction. He also stated that he was told to put the machine into
manual and was shown how to do it. He testified, however, that he had seen
Musgrave insert his arm into the broacher while the machine was still on
automatic. Claimant finally indicated that he never really understood the
broacher's "many buttons" and was intimidated by it.

The SHO denied the claimed violation based on the affidavit of Nolan C.
Reinhard, production supervisor in Atlas's crankshaft department. The SHO
stated:

3

"Based on the October 13, 1995 affidavit of Nolan C. Reinhard, it is found
that claimant was given approximately four weeks of training on the machine
which injured him, including training both verbally and by demonstration. It is
specifically found that this course of training is sufficient to satisfy the cited
requirement."

Rehearing was denied, with the reviewing hearing officer additionally
citing transcript evidence attesting to two months of claimant training.

Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying his
VSSR application. The court disagreed, after finding that the commission's order
was supported by "some evidence," as found by the court's magistrate.

The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
__________________

Gene P. Murray, for appellant.

Earl, Warburton, Adams & Davis and Bruce L. Hirsch, for appellee Atlas
Crankshaft Corporation.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Cheryl J. Nester, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee Industrial Commission.
__________________

Per Curiam. The specific safety requirement at issue requires the
employer to instruct the employee in the safe operation of qualifying machines
both "verbally and through demonstration." Claimant acknowledges that he was
instructed to place the broacher into the manual mode before reaching into the
machine to adjust the crankshaft. He also concedes that he was both told and
shown how to put the broacher into the manual mode. Yet, he failed to place the
machine in the manual mode at the time of accident.

Claimant argues that the malfunction rendered the broacher inherently
unsafe and that, regardless of instruction, there is no safe way to operate an

4

inherently unsafe machine. The flaw in this argument lies in claimant's
description of the broacher as inherently unsafe.

Claimant leaves unchallenged three key points: (1) the normal broaching
process never required insertion of a body part into the machine while it was on
automatic, (2) it was not necessary for the machine to remain in automatic in
order to correct the crankshaft, and (3) the loader could not descend if the
machine was in manual. This undermines claimant's assertion that the machine
(and/or his duties) were inherently dangerous.

Claimant's arguments are not always clear, so perhaps he believes that the
broacher was inherently dangerous because the danger zone was accessible during
the automatic cycle. If this is the gist of claimant's argument, however, he did not
cite an appropriate specific safety requirement. Again, Ohio Adm.Code 4121:1-
5-12(C)(1) requires instruction only on safe machine operation. It does not
impose the duty implied by claimant. Here, the commission had "some evidence"
that claimant was adequately trained. No more is required to sustain denial of this
alleged violation.

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.

5