State ex rel. Levitin v. Indus. Comm.

Citations

• 2022 Ohio 2750

Syllabus

Mandamus denied some evidence supported the commission's decision that the modified guard provided reasonable protection from the exposed nip point as required by Ohio Adm.Code 4123-1-5-11(D)(10)(a) and was not a violation of a specific safety requirement. Some evidence supported the commission's determination that the employer had no reason to believe the modified guard increased the risk of injury or malfunction. Even though there was conflicting evidence, weighing the evidence is the commission's responsibility, not the court's.