Ezel / Agency Decisions / 14076-commission
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 14076 Decided September 23, 1976 Citations affirmed

Chopko Construction Company

Default affirmed after repeated nonresponse

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1976, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1976
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.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance; check subsequent history before relying on it. 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

Chopko Construction failed to answer the Secretary's complaint and did not respond to the chief judge's order to show cause, so the judge affirmed the citation and proposed penalty by default. The company later asked that its notice of contest be treated as its answer. The Commission directed review and specifically ordered Chopko to explain its missed deadlines, but the company again did not respond. Because Chopko repeatedly ignored known time limits without offering any reason, the Commission affirmed the judge's decision.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): None identified in the Commission release.
  • Outcome: The default decision affirming the citation and proposed penalty was affirmed.
  • Key point: Relief from a late answer was denied where the employer repeatedly ignored known deadlines and supplied no explanation when the Commission requested one.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 14076

CHOPKO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

OSHRC Docket No. 14076

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

September 23, 1976

�
[*1]
�

Before BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.
�

COUNSEL:

William S. Kloepfer, Assoc. Regional Solicitor

John P. Kellackey, P. E. Chopko Construction Co., for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

BY THE COMMISSION:

In this case, Chief Judge Charles K. Chaplin affirmed the citation and notification of proposed penalty because of Respondent's failure to answer the complaint, and to respond to the Judge's Order to Show Cause why its notice of contest should not be dismissed for failure to file an answer.
�
Subsequent to the Judge's order, Respondent requested that its notice of contest be deemed its answer.
�
Review was thereupon directed on the issue of whether the Commission should accept the late-filed answer.
�
The direction for review also ordered Respondent to state why it had not timely filed an answer or responded to the Order to Show Cause.

Respondent has not replied to the direction for review.
�
While we attempt to afford parties every indulgence in order to provide them with their day in court, we cannot do so where a party continually ignores time limits of which it has actual knowledge, and, upon being requested to do so, offers no reason for not meeting those limits.
�
Accordingly,
�
[*2]
�
the Judge's decision is affirmed.
�

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1976. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.

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