Ezel / Agency Decisions / 92-2454-alj
OSHRC ALJ decision Docket 92-2454 Decided July 9, 1993 Settled Judge Irving Sommer

Crescent Street Construction Corp.

Fourteen serious items settled for $3,200

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1993 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 1993
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 It binds the parties but is not binding precedent in other cases.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

Crescent Street Construction received a serious citation containing 15 items with $15,300 in proposed penalties and a separate three-item other-than-serious citation with no penalty. The Secretary withdrew the first serious item. Immediately before the hearing, the parties settled the remaining 14 contested serious items. Crescent withdrew its contest without admitting responsibility, certified that all alleged violations had been abated, and agreed that the settlement could be used in future OSHA proceedings. The total penalty was reduced to $3,200. The agreement allowed payment in 16 monthly installments of $200, with the entire unpaid balance becoming due if an installment was not received by the stated deadline. The release does not identify the cited standards or describe the underlying conditions.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): Not identified in the release.
  • Outcome: Fourteen serious citation items were settled for $3,200, one serious item was withdrawn, and the settlement was approved.
  • Key point: The approved settlement required complete abatement and installment payments while allowing the employer to resolve the case without admitting responsibility.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

OCcUPATlONAL         sA~~N~~~E~~~~~c~~“,~~
                                  CoMhhisslON
                           One Lafayette Cents
                     1120 20th Street, N-W. - 9th Floor
                        Washington, DC 200304419
      *t   ^

SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant,
v. OSI-IRC DOCKET
NO. 92-2454
CRESCENT STREET CONSTRUCTION CORP.
Respondent.

                     NOTICE OF DOCKETING
               OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S DECISION
 The Administrative Law Judge’s Report in the above referenced case was

docketed with the Commission on June 9, 1993. The decision of the Judge
will become a final order of the Commission on July 9, 1993 unless a
Commission member directs review of the decision on or before that date. ANY .
PARTY DESIRING REVIEW OF THE JUDGE’S DECISION BY THE
COMMISSION MUST FILE A PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.
Any such petition should be received by the Executive Secretary on or before
June 29, 1993 in order to ermit sufficfent time for its review. See
Commission Rule 91, 29 8 .F.R. 2200.91.
All further pleadings or communications regarding this case shall be
addressed to:
Executive Secretary
Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 980
Washington, D.C. 20036-3419
Petitioning parties shall also mail a copy to:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DO5&
Room S4004
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210
If a Direction for Review is issued by the Commission, then the Counsel for
Regional Trial Litigation will represent the Department of Labor. Any party
having questions about review rrghts may contact the Commission’s Executive
Secretary or call (202) 606-5400.
FOR THE COM@@N ,, !

Date: June 9, 1993
DOCKET NO. 92-2454

NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:

Daniel J. Mick ENI.
Counsel for Rd 'O&I Trial Liti ation
Office of the Sof l
citor, U.S. DO!&
Room S4004 -
200 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

Patricia Rodenhausen., Esql

Re ‘onal Solicitor
O&e of the Solicitor U.S. DOL
201 brick, Room 707
New York, NY 10014

Jerry Papapanayotou, Esq$re
Crescent Street Constructron Corp.
14 Up er Mountain Avenue
MontePair, NJ 07042

Irvin Sommer
Chie P Administrative Law Jud e
Occupational Safety and Healt%
Review Commission
One iafayette Centre
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 990
Washington, DC 20036 3419

00102781242:02
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COh/!MissiON
One Lafayette Centte
1120 20th Street, N.W. - 9th Floor
Washington, DC 20036-3919

                                       .
                                       .

SECRETARY OF LABOR, ..

   Complainant,                        ..
                                        ..

           v.                          ..     Docket No. 92-2454

CRESCENT STREET CONSTRUCTIOf?
CORPORATION, ..

   Respondent.

                                       .

APPearances:
Alan L Kammerman, Esq. J. Papapanayotou, Esq.
U.S.Department of Labor 14 Upper Mountain Avenue
New York, NewYork Montclair,NewJersey 07042
For the Complainant For tbe Respondent

Before: Administrative Law Judge Irving Sommer

                             DECISION AND ORDER

   On July 9, 1992, respondent    was issued a serious citation for 15 violations(items 1

through 15), and a notification of proposed penalty of $15,300; additionally an other than
serious citation was issued for 3 violations with no penalty assessed. The Secretary withdrew
Citation no. 1, item 1 in her complaint. The respondent contested the remaining items in
citation no. 1.
A hearing was held on March 31,1993 in New York, New York. At the opening of
the hearing, the parties informed the undersigned that a settlement agreement had been
entered into immediately prior to the trial with the fobwing temx:
2
1. The Secrew amends the proposed penalty and complaint reking to Citation
no. 1 to reflect a total penalty of $3200 as folbw:
a. Citation one, item 2. The proposed penalty of $1050.
is amended to $225.
b l Citation one, item 3. The proposed penalty of $1050.
is amended to $225.
c. Citation one, item 4. The proposed penalty of SlOSO.
is amended to $225.
da Citation one, item 5. The proposed penalty of SlOSIL
is amended to $225.
e. Citation one, item 6. The proposed penalty of $10X
is amended to $225.
f. Citation one, item 7. The proposed penalty of $750.
is amended to $150.
8. Citation one, item 8. The proposed penalty of $750.
is amended to $150.
h. Citation one, item 9. The proposed penalty of $750.
is amended to $150.
i. Citation one, item lOThe proposed penalty of $1050.
is amended to $225.
.
J. Citation one, item ll-The proposed penalty of $10X
is amended to $225.
ko Citation one, item 12-Theproposed penalty of $10%X
is amended to $225.
L Citation one, item 13.The proposed penalty of $10501
is amended to $225.
m. Citation one, item M-The proposed penalty of Sl5o(L
is amended to SW.
0. Citation one, item 1%The proposed penalty of SlOXk
is amended to $225.
3

   2.        Based on the above, the respondent withdraw         its notice of contest and answer

as to the citations and proposed penalties as modified witbut admitting any responsibility
as to the violations charged. The parties agree that this settlement may be used in future
OSHA proceedings.
3. Respondent affirmatively states that all violatins alleged in the complaint are
deemed to have been abated and that it will comply with the Occupational Safety and
Health Act in the future.
4. Respondent certifies that a copy of this DECISION and ORDER incorporat-
ing the settlement agreement will be posted where affected employees may see it within ten
days after receiving this ORDER.
5. Respondent agrees to pay the amended proposed penalty of $3200 by
fonvarding sixteen installment checks in the amount of $200, each made payable to the
Occupational Safety and Health Labor, to the Occupational Safety and Health Administra-
tion at 4240 Bell Boulevard, fifth floor, Bayside, New York 11361. The first such check wiIl
be due by May 1, 1993. Subsequent checks will be due by the first of each succeeding
month during the period June, 1993 through August 1994.
In the event that any such two hundred dollar titallment check is not received
by OSHA by the tenth of the month, then the entire unpaid balance of the thirty-two
hundred dollars will become immediately due.
6. Each party agrees to bear its own fees and other expenses incurred by such
party in connection with any stage of this proceeding.
IT IS ORDERED that the terms of the settlement agreement entered above is
APPROVED.

DATED: JUN - 7 1993
Washington, D.C.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1993, 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.