Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller

Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller

Opinion

 [*176]  [***165]  [**1707]    JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.

 The issue presented in this case is whether the Supremacy Clause bars the State of Ohio from subjecting a private contractor operating a federally owned nuclear production facility to a state-law workers' compensation provision that provides an increased award for injuries resulting from an employer's violation of a state safety regulation.

 [****6]  I

This case arises from an accident involving a worker at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, a nuclear production facility located near Piketon, Ohio. The plant is owned by the United States, but at all times relevant to this action it was operated by a private company, appellant Goodyear Atomic Corporation, under contract with the Department of Energy (DOE). On July 30, 1980, appellee Esto Miller, a maintenance mechanic employed by Goodyear at the Portsmouth plant, fell from a scaffold while performing routine maintenance work and fractured his left ankle. His fall apparently was caused when his glove caught on a bolt protruding from the guardrail of the scaffolding. Miller applied to the Ohio Industrial Commission for an award under the State's workers' compensation program, for which Goodyear pays premiums to cover its Portsmouth employees. He received about $ 9,000 in workers' compensation.

After returning to work, Miller filed an application for an additional award on the ground that his injury  [***166]  had resulted from Goodyear's violation of a state safety requirement.  [*177]  Miller alleged that his fall was caused by Goodyear's failure to comply with Ohio  [****7]  Admin. Code § 4121:1-5-03(D)(2) (1987), which provides that "exposed surfaces [on scaffolds] shall be free from sharp edges, burrs or other projecting parts." The Ohio Constitution provides that when an injury is caused by an employer's failure to comply with a specific state safety requirement, the Industrial Commission shall provide an additional award of 15% to 50% of the benefits already received. Ohio Const., Art. II, § 35. The state insurance fund recoups these additional  [**1708]  payments by increasing the premium paid by the employer. Ibid.

The Ohio Industrial Commission denied Miller's claim for a supplemental award. The Commission held that "the [Ohio] Codes of Specific Safety Requirements . . . may not be applied to the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant under the doctrine of federal preemption." Claim No. 80-19975 (Mar. 8, 1983), App. 18. Miller filed a mandamus action in the Ohio Court of Appeals, seeking an order directing the Industrial Commission to consider his application. The court held that "until it is clear that the federal government has preempted the field of safety regulation for safety hazards unrelated to radiation, . . . state specific  [****8]  safety regulations that give rise to an award for violation thereof are equally applicable to an entity that contracts with the federal government for operation of a nuclear power facility owned exclusively by the federal government." No. 84AP-208 (July 25, 1985), App. 17. The court therefore ordered the Industrial Commission to consider Miller's claim that he was due an additional award because his injury was caused by a violation of a state safety regulation.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.