New York construction accidents are very common and can be extremely dangerous. Our experienced New York injury attorneys understand that a work accident can hinder your life. We are here to help you get the benefits you need to get the medical care you deserve.
David Barno (Barno) worked as a laborer. State ex rel. Ruscilli Constr. Co., Inc., v. Indus. Comm’n., No. 2012-Ohio-1588 (Ohio S.Ct. Apr. 12, 2012). He was hired by an employment agency which assigned temporary workers to construction projects. This employment agency assigned Barno to work on a renovation project for Ruscilli Construction Company (Ruscilli). This site had several openings in the concrete that led down to the basement. The workers who were familiar with the construction site were familiar with the location of these openings. However, Barno had not been informed of the presence of these openings. On his third day of working on the site, Barno was instructed to remove some wood that was left on the floor within the construction site. Upon doing this, Barno lost his balance and fell back into a fifteen-foot-deep hole. He sustained severe injuries to his face and head.
Barno argued that he was injured while working for Ruscilli because Ruscilli had failed to comply with the specific safety requirements surrounding the floor openings on construction sites. Barno received initial workers’ compensation benefits; however, he sought additional benefits because of Ruscilli’s alleged violation of specific safety requirements (VSSR) stipulated in state statute. The Ohio statute provided that any floor openings had to be guarded by a guard railing and toeboard, a cover with a safety factor, or the use of a safety belt or harness. Ohio Adm. Code 4123: 1-3-04(D).
Ruscilli denied any such VSSR, and a proceeding began before a workers’ compensation commission staff hearing officer (SHO). Ruscilli had the site foreman and the company corporate safety secretary testify as to the safety measures on the construction site. Webb, the safety secretary, indicated that there was customarily plywood sheets placed over any floor openings. These plywood sheets were nailed down by special nails that went into wood and concrete making them difficult to be moved or lifted. Additionally, the foreman testified that the plywood had a painted warning stating “hole” to be visible to the workers.
Barno argued that the plywood covering the hole was thin, had no sign on it and it was not nailed in. Because of this, the SHO found that Ruscilli had violated the state statute controlling floor openings on construction sites. Ruscilli appealed this SHO decision claiming that the SHO had abused its discretion by basing the case decision on factual mistakes.
Upon a review of the case, the facts presented, and the legal analysis, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the SHO decision could not be upheld because there were several major errors involving law and fact. This court dealt with the question of whether this plywood cover used by Ruscilli could be accidentally displaced.
Because the SHO had misstated the state statue to include the requirement that the cover could not be easily displaced; this court found that Ruscilli had not actually committed a VSSR. Therefore, the decision of the SHO granting Barno additional workers’ compensation benefits was not upheld.
If you have been injured contact New York injury attorneys at Law Offices of Nicholas Rose, PLLC to schedule a free appointment. Call 718-261-0546.
Additional Resources:
State ex rel. Ruscilli Constr. Co., Inc., v. Indus. Comm’n., No. 2012-Ohio-1588 (Ohio S.Ct. Apr. 12, 2012).
