Dels Exteriors LLC (ALJ decision, October 1, 2026)

Plain-English summary

OSHA cited Dels Exteriors after inspecting a residential construction site in Illinois. The company contested two serious and three repeat serious items, then failed to participate after reporting a settlement in principle. Judge Coleman found that its owner missed required conferences and did not answer a show cause order. He dismissed the contest, affirmed all cited items, and assessed the proposed $33,195 penalty. The order does not list the specific standards cited.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): Specific cited standards are not identified in the published order.
• Outcome: All five citation items affirmed and $33,195 assessed after default.
• Key point: Failure to participate after repeated opportunities justified dismissing the contest.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Some personal identifiers have been redacted for privacy purposes.

United States of America
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20036-3419

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v. Docket No. 25-1316
DELS EXTERIORS LLC,
Respondent.

ORDER OF DEFAULT AND DISMISSAL
Pursuant to Commission Rule 101(a), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.101(a), the Respondent, Dels

Exteriors LLC, is declared to be in default, and its notice of contest is dismissed. For the reasons

described below, the citations issued to the Respondent on September 18, 2025, as a result of

OSHA inspection number 1833565 are AFFIRMED in their entirety and their proposed penalties

totaling $33,195.00 are ASSESSED as issued.

Background
On or about June 23, 2025, the Arlington Heights, Illinois, area office of the Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) initiated OSHA inspection number 1833565 at a

residential construction worksite at [redacted], Hoffman Estates, Illinois 60169. As a result of that

inspection, OSHA issued to the Respondent on September 18, 2025, a two-item serious citation

and a three-item “repeat-serious” citation, alleging violations of various OSHA construction

industry safety and health standards (codified at 29 C.F.R. Part 1926) and proposing penalties for

those alleged violations totaling $33,195.00. (The citations noted that all five alleged violative

conditions/practices had been corrected during the inspection.)

By typewritten letter dated October 14, 2025, from the Respondent’s owner/operator, Mr.

Kevin Delgado, and addressed to the area director of the OSHA area office in Arlington Heights,

the Respondent timely contested the citations and the proposed penalties. The return address for

that letter was the same address to which the OSHA area office had addressed the citations:

[redacted], Elgin, IL 60124.

Mr. Delgado thereafter engaged Attorney Aaron R. Gelb, of the law firm Conn Maciel

Carey LLP, to represent the Respondent in the matter. On January 28, 2026, Attorney Gelb entered

his appearance in the matter on behalf of the Respondent pursuant to Commission Rule 23(a)(3).

29 C.F.R. § 2200.23(a)(3). Later that same day, the attorney for the Complainant filed and served

on Attorney Gelb a Notification of Settlement in Principle reporting that the parties had “reached

a settlement in principle to completely resolve this case.”

In response to the notification of settlement the Commission’s Chief Judge on February

10, 2026, issued an Order Acknowledging Proposed Full Settlement that directed the parties to file

no later than March 12, 2026, the necessary documentation that would allow the issuance of an

order terminating these Commission proceedings.

On February 25, 2026, the Commission’s Chief Judge assigned the matter to the

undersigned Commission judge for disposition.

On March 11, 2026, Attorney Gelb filed an unopposed motion for a 30-day extension to

April 13 for filing the necessary documentation. The body of the motion for extension stated in

part as follows:

1. The Parties have reached an agreement as to the terms and conditions to be included in the settlement agreement.
2. Counsel for the Solicitor prepared a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and transmitted a copy to undersigned counsel on January 27, 2026. That same day, undersigned counsel provided a copy to Respondent for review and signature by Mr.
Kevin Delgado.

2

3. Counsel has made at least 5 attempts to contact Mr. Delgado since January 27, but has … neither received a response, nor a signed copy of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.
4. Counsel requests an additional 30 days to review the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and obtain Respondent’s signature.

I granted the motion for the 30-day extension, but the required documentation was not filed

by the extended April 13 deadline. In an email response on April 14 to an inquiry from my

assistant, Attorney Gelb stated that he had “been unable to reach Mr. Delgado, the owner of

Respondent, for many months despite numerous calls, emails and text messages,” and that “[a]s

such, I am going to have to withdraw as I am unable to continue in my representation.”

On April 23, 2026, I conducted a telephone conference with the attorney for the

Complainant and Attorney Gelb, during which Mr. Gelb described his unsuccessful attempts to

communicate with Mr. Delgado. I determined to provide Attorney Gelb additional time to

reconnect with Mr. Delgado, but after four weeks of no further case activity, I issued an order

dated June 3, 2026, directing the Complainant to file and serve a complaint in the matter pursuant

to Commission Rule 34(a).

The Complainant filed the complaint and served it on Attorney Gelb on June 4, 2026. The

certificate of service indicates further that the complaint was served also on Mr. Delgado via email

at the following email address: [[email protected]].

On June 5, 2026, Attorney Gelb filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for the Respondent

that conformed with the requirements of Commission Rule 23(b).

By order dated June 10, 2026, I issued an order granting Attorney Gelb’s motion to

withdraw from representation of the Respondent. This order was served on Mr. Delgado at the

address in Elgin, Illinois, that Mr. Delgado had provided. Also, an electronic courtesy copy of the

order was sent to Mr. Delgado addressed to the email address that both Attorney Gelb and the

3

attorney for the Complainant had used, as described above. The order granting Attorney Gelb’s

withdrawal provided in part as follows:

The Commission now deems the Respondent, Dels Exteriors LLC, to be self-represented in this matter by Mr. Kevin Delgado.
The Respondent’s status as self-represented shall continue unless and until some other third-party representative (whether an attorney or non-attorney) files and serves an entry of appearance in the matter on behalf of the Respondent pursuant to Commission Rule 23(a)(3).

The order further informed Mr. Delgado of the requirement that self-represented employers

register with and utilize the Commission’s electronic filing system (or seek and obtain an

exemption from this requirement). The order also reminded Mr. Delgado that the Respondent’s

responsive pleading to the complaint was due no later than June 25, 2026. The order further

notified both Mr. Delgado and the attorney for the Complainant of a mandatory telephone

conference that I would conduct on July 1, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. Central Time.

Mr. Delgado did not file a responsive pleading to the complaint and he did not call in for

the telephone conference on July 1, 2026.

On July 1, 2026, I issued an Order to Show Cause to the Respondent requiring the

Respondent to show cause no later than July 23, 2026, why the Respondent “should not be declared

to be in default and its notice of contest dismissed.” The order to show cause also scheduled

another mandatory telephone conference for July 30, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Central Daylight Time.

The order to show cause stated further the following:

If the Respondent’s representative participates in the telephone conference (even if he fails to file a written response to this Order to Show Cause), I will likely find that that the Respondent has shown cause to avoid default and dismissal of his notice of contest. In that event, I intend to address other matters during the telephone conference, such setting a hearing date and establishing a pre- hearing schedule.

4

The final paragraph of the Order to Show Cause stated:

Compliance. THE FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENT’S REPRESENTATIVE TO RESPOND TO THIS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND HIS FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON JULY 30, 2026, WILL LIKELY RESULT IN THE RESPONDENT BEING FOUND IN DEFAULT AND ITS NOTICE OF CONTEST BEING DISMISSED. THESE ACTIONS WOULD RESULT IN THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS BEING AFFIRMED AND THE PROPOSED PENALTIES TOTALING $33,195.00 BEING ASSESSED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT WITHOUT A TRIAL.

The Order to Show Cause was sent to Mr. Delgado in two separate mailings addressed to

him at his address in Elgin. One mailing was sent by regular mail and the other mailing was sent

by certified mail. An electronic courtesy copy of the order to show cause was also sent to Mr.

Delgado to the email address described above.

The regular mailing containing the order to show cause was not returned by the postal

service undelivered and is thus presumed to have been delivered. See Legille v. Dann, 544 F.2d 1

(D.C. Cir. 1976) (noting that there is a rebuttable presumption that the postal service has delivered

to the addressee a properly addressed, stamped, and deposited mailing). As for the separate

certified mailing, U.S. Postal Service returned that mailing undelivered, with a printed sticker on

the face of the envelop dated 08/05/26 that stated: “RETURN TO SENDER[;] UNCLAIMED[;]

UNABLE TO FORWARD.”

The Respondent did not file a response to the Order to Show Cause by the time specified

in the order to show cause or at any time thereafter.

Mr. Delgado did not call in for the telephone conference that was conducted as scheduled

on July 30, 2026.

On July 30, 2026, I issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Order of Default and Dismissal that

provided in part:
5

The purpose of this notice is to inform the Respondent that I intend to issue an order of default or dismissal after August 14, 2026.
However, if the Respondent wishes to avoid its contest being dismissed without a trial, the Respondent’s representative should send a written request addressed to me (at the address reflected in the caption) requesting that I schedule a telephone conference for the purpose of scheduling a trial date (for a trial to be conducted in Chicago) and establishing a pre-trial schedule. If the Respondent does not make such a request by August 14, 2026, I will issue an order of default and dismissal thereafter.

Mr. Delgado has not since requested that I schedule a telephone conference as the notice had

invited him to do, nor has he otherwise contacted my office in any manner. Consequently, this

order of default and dismissal is issued.

Discussion
Commission Rule 101(a), codified at 29 C.F.R. § 2200.101(a), provides in part as follows:
Sanctions. When any party has failed to plead or otherwise proceed as provided by these rules or as required by the . . . Judge, the party may be declared to be in default . . . on the initiative of . . . the Judge, after having been afforded an opportunity to show cause why the party should not be declared to be in default . . ..
Subsequently, . . . the Judge, in their discretion, may enter a decision against the defaulting party . . ..
The Commission “follows the policy in law that favors deciding cases on their merits.”

DHL Express, Inc., 21 BNA OSHC 2179, 2180 (No. 07-0478, 2007). Rule 101(a) nevertheless

permits the harsh sanction of dismissal of a notice of contest where a respondent has displayed a

“pattern of disregard” of Commission proceedings. Philadelphia Constr. Equip., Inc., 16 BNA

OSHC 1128, 1131 (No. 92-899, 1993); Architectural Glass & Metal Co., 19 BNA OSHC 1546,

1547 (No. 00-0389, 2001); see also Commission Rule 101(b), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.101(b) (a default

sanction may be set aside “[f]or reasons deemed sufficient by the Commission or the Judge and

upon motion … expeditiously made”).

6

The failures of Mr. Delgado, the Respondent’s representative, (1) to participate in two

scheduled telephone conferences, (2) to register with the Commission’s electronic filing system or

seek and exemption from the mandatory use of that system, (3) to file a response to the Order to

Show Cause, and (4) to accept the invitation to avoid default by simply requesting a third telephone

conference (after having failed to appear for two telephone conferences), altogether reflect a

pattern of disregard of Commission proceedings that warrants an order of default. The Order to

Show Cause and the subsequent notice of intent to issue an order of default and dismissal both

made it abundantly clear that if the Respondent continued to fail to participate I would issue an

order of default that would have the effect of affirming the citations and proposed penalties in their

entirety.

It is impossible to move this case forward to a hearing in view of the Respondent’s failure

to engage in the process and participate in the proceedings. There is no reasonable basis to

conclude that the Respondent intends to begin engaging in the adjudicative process by participating

in prehearing proceedings or appearing at a hearing to defend the matter. Cf. Commission Rule

64(a), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.64(a) (providing that “[t]he failure of a party to appear at a hearing may

result in a decision against that party”). The only reasonable conclusions to be drawn from the

Respondent’s failures to engage in the process and to participate in these Commission proceedings

are that the Respondent (1) has willfully abandoned its case before the Commission, or (2) is

disdainful of the orders of the Commission, or (3) both.

The Respondent’s failure to engage in the process and participate in Commission

proceedings is prejudicial to the administration of justice and to the Secretary’s enforcement

responsibilities under the OSH Act. The Commission cannot countenance the prejudicial effects

of his continuing failures. Dismissal of the Respondent’s notice of contest is the necessary and

7

appropriate remedy to cure the prejudicial impact of its apparent abandonment of its contest of the

citations and their proposed penalties.

ORDER
For these reasons, the Respondent, Dels Exteriors LLC, is determined to be in DEFAULT,

and its notice of contest is DISMISSED. The Citation and Notification of Penalty issued to the

Respondent on September 18, 2025, in connection with OSHA inspection number 1833565 is

AFFIRMED in its entirety, and the proposed penalties set forth therein are ASSESSED.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ William S. Coleman
WILLIAM S. COLEMAN
Administrative Law Judge

DATED: August 31, 2026

8