Ezel / Agency Decisions / 02-1146-alj
OSHRC ALJ decision Docket 02-1146 Decided February 28, 2003 Citations affirmed Judge Michael H. Schoenfeld

Pico Industries

Two construction items affirmed with $650 in penalties

Apply this to your situation

This order from 2003 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ezel answers your situation under the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2003
The OSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final order, not Commission precedent
This decision by an OSHRC Administrative Law Judge became a final order of the Commission because no Commissioner directed review (29 U.S.C. § 661(j)). It binds the parties but is not binding precedent in other cases. The full text below is from the official OSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official OSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Following an OSHA inspection in June 2002, Pico Industries contested a citation alleging two serious construction-safety violations and $4,200 in proposed penalties. After an E-Z Trial hearing, the judge issued a bench decision. The written order affirmed item 1 as serious with a $500 penalty and affirmed item 2 as other-than-serious with a $150 penalty. The public release does not identify the cited standard numbers or describe the underlying conditions.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): The public release identifies only unspecified construction standards in 29 C.F.R. Part 1926.
  • Outcome: Both items were affirmed, one as serious and one as other-than-serious, with total penalties of $650.
  • Key point: The final written order reduced the proposed $4,200 citation package to $650 while affirming both items.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v. DOCKET NO. 02-1146
PICO INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Respondent.

APPEARANCES:
Yusef M. Mohamed, Esq. Lewis Mulittz
Linda H. Ghosal, Esq. President, Pico Industries
Office of the Solicitor of Labor Pro Se
U.S. Department of Labor For Respondent
For Complainant

BEFORE: MICHAEL H. SCHOENFELD
Administrative Law Judge

                            DECISION AND ORDER


   This proceeding is before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“the

Commission”) pursuant to section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29
U.S.C. § 651 et seq. (“the Act”). This case arose following an OSHA inspection conducted on or
about June 24, 2002. Following the inspection, the Secretary issued to Pico Industries (“Pico”),
Respondent herein, one citation alleging two serious violations of construction safety standards
appearing in part 1926 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations and proposed civil penalties
totaling $4,200.00.
On August 16, 2002, the Chief Administrative Law Judge assigned this matter to the
undersigned Administrative Law Judge and designated it for processing under the Commission’s “E-
Z Trial” procedures pursuant to Commission Rule 203, 29 C.F.R. § 2200.203. A hearing in this
matter was held on December 13, 2002, in Washington, D.C., at which both parties appeared and
gave evidence. As authorized by Rule 209(f), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.209(f), I rendered my decision and
order from the bench. (Tr. 117 - 124) That decision and order is attached hereto and incorporated in
its entirety.

                                        ORDER



    1. Citation one, item 1 is AFFIRMED as a serious violation of the Act. A civil
    penalty of $500.00 is assessed therefor.
    2. Citation one, item 2 is AFFIRMED as an other-than-serious violation of the Act.
    A civil penalty of $150.00 is assessed therefor.




                                                           /s/
                                                     Michael H. Schoenfeld, Judge OSHRC

Dated: January 27, 2003
Washington, D.C.

                                               -2-

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 2003, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.