Ohio Supreme Court Narrows Deference to Industrial Commission in Berry Decision

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in State ex rel. Berry v. Industrial Commission that courts are not obligated to defer to Industrial Commission interpretations of the state’s specific safety requirements (SSRs).

A Benesch firm client bulletin explains that the ruling means courts must independently interpret these rules, especially when the language is clear. The decision reshapes the balance of authority between Ohio courts and administrative agencies in workers’ compensation matters, and potentially beyond.

The case arose from a worker’s claim for a Violation of Specific Safety Requirement (VSSR) award after the Industrial Commission denied his application.

Historically, the Commission has interpreted SSRs in a manner that favors employers in VSSR cases. When the employee sought judicial review through a mandamus action, the Tenth District Court of Appeals found the Commission’s interpretation legally flawed and ruled that deference was unwarranted.

The appellate court went further by directing the Commission to award compensation, a step the Ohio Supreme Court later deemed excessive, explaining that factual determinations remain the Commission’s responsibility.

While the Ohio Supreme Court agreed that judicial deference to the Industrial Commission’s legal interpretations is not required, it limited its holding to legal, not factual, questions.

The decision parallels reasoning in the US Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision, which restricted deference to federal agencies. Berry may yield opposite practical effects for employers by allowing employees to push for broader interpretations of SSRs.

Legal teams should note that Berry signals a pivotal shift in Ohio administrative law. Courts may now scrutinize agency interpretations more closely, which could extend beyond the Industrial Commission to other state regulatory bodies.

Employers should anticipate more expansive employee arguments in VSSR proceedings and increased judicial involvement in interpreting agency rules that were once largely insulated from review.