Newsletters
Risk Central
Digital EditionOhio Supreme Court Upholds Additional Compensation for Injured Roofer in Safety Violation Case
The Ohio Supreme Court has upheld a workers’ compensation ruling that expands employer liability for workplace safety violations, affirming that Prime Roof Solutions must pay additional compensation beyond standard workers’ compensation benefits to an injured roofer.
The court’s decision in State ex rel. Prime Roof Solutions Inc. vs. Indus. Comm reinforces strict interpretation of safety equipment requirements and clarifies employer obligations under Ohio’s violation of specific safety requirement provisions, potentially increasing exposure for workers’ compensation insurers covering construction risks.
The dispute arose from a 2018 roofing accident where employee Mauricio Rivera fell 18 feet through a skylight while working on a metal roof repair project. Rivera sustained multiple injuries including brain trauma, facial fractures, and shoulder damage, for which his workers’ compensation claim was approved. However, Rivera also sought additional compensation under Ohio’s violation of specific safety requirement system, which allows injured workers to receive penalty awards when workplace injuries result from employer safety violations.
Rivera alleged that Prime Roof failed to provide required fall-protection equipment, specifically harnesses and lanyards that must be securely fastened to roof structures when employees work more than six feet above ground.
Prime Roof argued that compliance with safety regulations was impossible during the initial setup phase of fall-protection systems. The company contended that Rivera was injured while crew members were installing anchor points necessary for the fall-protection system, making it logically impossible to provide functional safety equipment before the anchors were in place. Prime Roof maintained that requiring fall protection during system installation would create an absurd result, as employees must necessarily work without gear while establishing the very safety infrastructure the regulations require. The company emphasized that harnesses and lanyards were transported to the job site, demonstrating good faith compliance efforts.
Rivera countered that Prime Roof violated administrative code requirements mandating that employers provide fall-protection equipment to workers exposed to falling hazards. He argued that merely transporting equipment to the job site was insufficient to satisfy the “provide” requirement, which the administrative code defines as “to make available.” Rivera’s position was that functional fall protection must be accessible and usable, not simply present on-site.
The court’s analysis focused on factual findings rather than theoretical compliance scenarios. The Industrial Commission’s staff hearing officer determined that Rivera was identifying leak locations rather than installing anchors when he fell, distinguishing his activities from the setup work Prime Roof claimed made compliance impossible.
The court emphasized that “factual questions relevant to proof of a VSSR rest exclusively within the discretion of the commission” and found sufficient evidence supported the commission’s determination. Critically, the court noted that even if harnesses had been available, “there was nowhere to tie off” because anchors had not yet been installed, making the safety equipment functionally useless.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s denial of Prime Roof’s mandamus petition, upholding the additional compensation award to Rivera. This decision reinforces that workers’ compensation insurers may face increased exposure through violation of specific safety requirement claims when employers fail to provide functional safety equipment.
View the full decision here. &
