Fern Valley Excavating, Inc. (ALJ decision, April 7, 2008)
All items vacated because the company was not the employer
Apply this to your situation
This order from 2008 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Fern Valley Excavating was engaged in excavation contracting and landscaping. OSHA investigated an accident at an Ohio jobsite, and the threshold issue was whether Fern Valley employed the workers at the site on the accident date. The judge found that it did not. All four citation items were vacated, and no penalty was assessed. The official release states that relevant transcript excerpts were attached, but the extracted release does not include their substantive text.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): None identified in the decision
- Outcome: Citation 1, Items 1 through 4 were vacated, and no penalty was assessed.
- Key point: OSHA cannot sustain a citation against a company that was not the employer of the workers at the cited site.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
United States of America
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1924 Building - Room 2R90, 100 Alabama Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104
Secretary of Labor,
Complainant,
v. OSHRC Docket No. 07-1498
Fern Valley Excavating, Inc.,
Respondent.
Appearances:
Patrick L. DePace, Esquire., U. S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Cleveland , Ohio
For Com plainant
David Le neghan, Esquire, Bro adview H eights, Ohio
For Respond ent
Before: Administrative Law Judge Stephen J. Simko, Jr.
DECISION AND ORDER
Fern Valley Excavating, Inc. (Fern Valley) is engaged in excavation contracting and
landscaping. On April 26, 2007, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration conducted an investigation of a jobsite in Parma, Ohio. This investigation concerned working conditions relating to an accident at that worksite on April 26, 2007. Respondent timely filed a notice contesting the citation and proposed penalties. A hearing was held, pursuant to Simplified Proceedings, 29 C.F.R.
§ 2200.200 et seq., in Cleveland, Ohio, on February 5, 2008. The threshold issue to be decided is whether Respondent was the employer of workers on this jobsite on April 26, 2007, the date of this accident. For the reasons that follow, I find Respondent was not an employer on that site on that date. All alleged violations are vacated and no penalty is assessed.
Excerpts of relevant transcript pages and paragraphs, including findings of fact and
conclusions of law (Tr. 174 - 183), are attached hereto in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 2200.209(f). FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW
The foregoing decision constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a).
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing decision, it is ORDERED:
Citation No. 1, Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 are vacated and no penalty is assessed.
/s/
STEPHEN J. SIMKO, JR.
Judge
Date: February 29, 2008
Attachment Tr. 174 - 183
-2
What applies to your situation today?
This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace