State ex rel. Mattox v. Industrial Commission — Court denies mandamus over fiber-optic worker’s safety-rule claim

Case
State ex rel. Andrew Mattox v. Industrial Commission of Ohio et al.
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Tenth District
Judge
Dingus; Beatty Blunt (elected 2018); Edelstein
Date Decided
September 29, 2026
Docket No.
24AP-703
Topics
Workers’ compensation; workplace safety; mandamus; telecommunications
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Andrew Mattox, a premise technician for Armstrong Utilities, was installing fiber-optic cable on wooden utility poles as part of Armstrong’s conversion from coaxial cable. While lowering his bucket lift in a wooded area on August 31, 2021, a tree limb caught an energized electrical line, which contacted the lift arm. Mattox was severely electrocuted.

Mattox sought a violation-of-specific-safety-requirement award, alleging that Armstrong violated Adm.Code 4123:1-3-07(E), which prescribes precautions for operating construction equipment near overhead electrical conductors. A staff hearing officer denied the application, and the Industrial Commission denied reconsideration. Mattox then sought a writ of mandamus compelling the commission to vacate its decision.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied the writ. It held that the construction-safety rule did not apply because attaching and stringing fiber-optic cable on existing utility poles was not construction activity within the scope of Adm.Code Chapter 4123:1-3.

Even assuming a utility pole is a “structure,” attaching cable did not construct, alter, repair, or otherwise affect the pole itself under the rule’s ordinary meaning. Nor did the work constitute new construction or substantial reconstruction of a structure. The court adopted the magistrate’s decision and overruled Mattox’s objections.

Key Takeaways

  • A VSSR claimant must establish that the cited safety requirement applied to the work at issue.
  • Affixing fiber-optic cable to an existing utility pole does not, by itself, alter or reconstruct the pole under Ohio’s construction-safety rules.
  • The court did not hold that telecommunications employers are categorically exempt from Adm.Code Chapter 4123:1-3.

Why It Matters

The decision limits the reach of Ohio’s construction-specific safety requirements in telecommunications installation work. The nature of the actual work—not simply the existence of a utility-pole structure or the employer’s industry label—controls whether the construction code applies.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top