State ex rel. Whitmer v. Indus. Comm.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
1 The State ex rel. Whitmer, Appellee, v. Industrial Commission of Ohio; 2 Anchor Tool & Die Company, Appellant. 3 [Cite as State ex rel. Whitmer v. Indus. Comm. (1997), __________Ohio 4 St.3d ___.] 5 Workers compensation -- Customer companies of temporary 6 service agencies are employers subject to claims for 7 violations of specific safety requirements. 8 (No. 95-490 -- Submitted April 16, 1997 -- Decided May 14, 1997.) 9 Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 10 11 94APD01-59. Hours, Inc. is a temporary-employment-service agency. In 1985, 12 Hours, Inc. assigned appellee-claimant, James Whitmer, to work at 13 appellant, Anchor Tool & Die Company ( Anchor ). On December 4, 14 1985, claimant was severely injured when a punch press at the Anchor plant 15 came down on his left hand. 16 After his workers compensation claim had been allowed by the 17 Industrial Commission of Ohio, claimant filed an application for additional 18 compensation, alleging that Anchor had violated several specific safety 19 requirements ( VSSR ). The commission denied the application. It named 1 Hours, Inc. as claimant s employer and found that the agency s lack of 2 ownership or control over the punch press foreclosed a VSSR award against 3 it. The commission did not address whether Anchor may have committed a 4 VSSR. 5 Claimant eventually filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of 6 Appeals for Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its 7 discretion in denying his VSSR application. The court of appeals vacated 8 the order and returned the cause to the commission to determine whether 9 Anchor had violated any of the cited specific safety requirements. 10 This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 11 Berger & Kirschenbaum Co., L.P.A., and Linda U. Elliott, for 12 appellee. 13 Stevens & Mack and David E. Mack, for appellant. 14 Per Curiam. On authority of State ex rel. Newman v. Indus. Comm. 15 (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 271, 673 N.E. 2d 1301, the judgment of the court of 16 appeals is affirmed. 17 Judgment affirmed. 2 1 2 MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 3 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
