Lu Mar Enterprises
Settlement of excavation citations approved
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1996 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.
Plain-English summary
OSHA issued Lu Mar two citations alleging serious and willful excavation-related violations at a New Jersey worksite. After hearings on three dates, the parties reached a settlement and placed its terms on the record. The judge approved and incorporated the stipulated settlement in full. The official release does not state the amended classifications or penalty amounts in readable text, so no more specific result can be reported.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): The release identifies provisions concerning confined-space instruction, trench egress, hazardous atmospheres, and water accumulation, but one additional standard number is incomplete in the source text.
- Outcome: The parties' stipulated settlement was approved and incorporated into the final order.
- Key point: The final disposition is the approved settlement; the official release does not provide readable terms sufficient to summarize citation or penalty changes.
Full text (OSHRC public release)
United States of America
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20036-34 19
Phone:(202)606-5400
Fax:(202)606-5050
SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant,
v. OSHRC DOCKET
NO. 951059
LU MAR ENTNERPRISES
Respondent.
NOTICE OF DOCKETING
OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S DECISION
The Administrative Law Judge’s Re ort in the above referenced case was
docketed with the Commission on July 4) 1996. The decision of the Judge
will become a final order of the Comm&ion on August 2, 1996 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 etition should be received by the Executive Secret on or before
July 23? 1B96 in order to ermit sufficient time for its review.Y ee
Commission Rule 91, 29 E .F.R. 2200.91.
All further pleadings or communications regarding this case shah 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 shah also mail a copy to:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOH,
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
havmg questions about review nghts may contact the Commission’s Executive
Secretary or call (202) 606-5400.
FOR THE COMMSIOS
I
Date: July 3, 1996
DOCKET NO. 95-1059
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:
Patricia Rodenhausen, Esq.
Re ‘onal Solicitor
O&e of the Solicitor U.S. DOL
201 brick, Room 707
New York, NY 10014
Jose h W Rufolo
JW &folb and Associates, Inc.
Six Moyse Place
Edison, NJ 08820
Irvin Sommer
Chie f Administrative Law Judge
Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission
One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 990
Washington, DC 20036 3419
00109881938:02
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
SECRETARY OF LABOR ..
Complainant,
.
V. . Docket No. 95-1059
LUMAR ENTERPRISES, INC., ..
Respondent. .
l
Appearances:
Nancee Adams-Taylor, Esq. James W. Rufolo
U.S. Department of Labor J.W. Rufolo & Associates
New York, New York Edison, New Jersey
For the Secretary For the Respondent
Before: Chief Judge Irving Sommer
DECISION AND ORDER
This is a proceeding under Section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,
29 U.S.C. 65 1 et seq. (the Act) to review citations issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to
Section 9(a) of the Act, and the proposed assessment of penalties therein issued, under Section 1O(a)
of the Act.
Following an inspection of respondent’s business site in Woodbridge, N.J. the Secretary of
Labor issued two citations charging serious violations of the standard at 29 CFR 1926.21 (b)(6)(1),
29 CFR 1926.651(c)(2), 29 CFR 1926.65 l(g)(l)(I) and wilful violation of the standard at 29 CFR
1926.65 l(h)( 1) and 29 CFR 1926(a)( 1). The respondent timely contested the citations. Following
the filing of a complaint and answer and pursuant to a notice of hearing, the case came on to be heard
inNew York, N.Y. onNovember 30,1995, December 1,1995 and April 24, 1996. No jurisdictional
issues are in dispute, the parties having pleaded sufficient facts to establish that the respondent is
subject to the Act and the Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subiect matter.
DISCUSSION
At the continued hearing held on April 24, 1996, the parties, through amgent enorts of
counsel with the assistance of the Court achieved a settlement and spread said agreement on the
record at the proceeding. The statements of settlement made at the hearing have been reduced to a
written stipulated settlement.
ORDER
The terms and conditions of the stipulated settlement, incorporated herein in its entirety, are
approved.
Chief Judge
DATED: JK - 2 ‘=
Washington, D.C.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
------------------I----- ------ --w--m
X
&BERT B. REICH, Secretary of Labor, :
United States Department of Labor,
.. OSHRC Docket
Complainant,
.
. No . 95-1095
v.
..
LU MAR ENTERPRISES, INC.,
..
Respondent.
..
------------------------------- ----w--w -X
ORDER
Respondent in OSHRC Docket No. 95-1095 by a letter dated
June 6, 1995 contested two (2) citations issued to it by
Complainant on May 17, 1995. In that letter, Respondent also
contested the penalties proposed by Complainant for the citations.
An executed Stipulated Settlement has been received from
the parties, and this Stipulation addresses all matters at issue
between the parties in this proceeding. The Stipulation having
been read and considered it is hereby
ORDERED: (1) That the terms of the Stipulated
Settlement are approved and incorporated as part of this Order; and
(2) That this Order I pursuant to Section 12(j) of the
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 661(j), will become the final order of the
Commission at the expiration of 30 days from the date of docketing
by the Executive Secretary, unless within that time a member of the
Commission directs that it be reviewed.
Dated this &&day of
1996.
SO ORDERED: ,.*"3
4-b'. .f
I'
:2*‘
Chief Judge, Occupational Safety
& Health Review Commission
United States of America
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20036-34 19
Phone:(202)606-5400
Fax:(202)606-5050
SECRETARY OF LABOR
Complainant,
v. OSHRC DOCKET
NO. 951059
LU MAR ENTNERPRISES
Respondent.
NOTICE OF DOCKETING
OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S DECISION
The Administrative Law Judge’s Re ort in the above referenced case was
docketed with the Commission on July 4) 1996. The decision of the Judge
will become a final order of the Comm&ion on August 2, 1996 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 etition should be received by the Executive Secret on or before
July 23? 1B96 in order to ermit sufficient time for its review.Y ee
Commission Rule 91, 29 E .F.R. 2200.91.
All further pleadings or communications regarding this case shah 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 shah also mail a copy to:
Daniel J. Mick, Esq.
Counsel for Regional Trial Liti ation
Office of the Solicitor, U.S. DOH,
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
havmg questions about review nghts may contact the Commission’s Executive
Secretary or call (202) 606-5400.
FOR THE COMMSIOS
I
Date: July 3, 1996
DOCKET NO. 95-1059
NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE FOLLOWING:
Patricia Rodenhausen, Esq.
Re ‘onal Solicitor
O&e of the Solicitor U.S. DOL
201 brick, Room 707
New York, NY 10014
Jose h W Rufolo
JW hfolb and Associates, Inc.
Six Moyse Place
Edison., NJ 08820
Irvin Sommer
Chic f Administrative Law Judge
Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission
One Lafayette Centre
1120 20th St. N.W., Suite 990
Washington, DC 20036 3419
00109881938:02
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
SECRETARY OF LABOR ..
Complainant,
.
V. . Docket No. 95-1059
LUMAR ENTERPRISES, INC., ..
Respondent. .
l
Appearances:
Nancee Adams-Taylor, Esq. James W. Rufolo
U.S. Department of Labor J.W. Rufolo & Associates
New York, New York Edison, New Jersey
For the Secretary For the Respondent
Before: Chief Judge Irving Sommer
DECISION AND ORDER
This is a proceeding under Section 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,
29 U.S.C. 65 1 et seq. (the Act) to review citations issued by the Secretary of Labor pursuant to
Section 9(a) of the Act, and the proposed assessment of penalties therein issued, under Section 1O(a)
of the Act.
Following an inspection of respondent’s business site in Woodbridge, N.J. the Secretary of
Labor issued two citations charging serious violations of the standard at 29 CFR 1926.21 (b)(6)(1),
29 CFR 1926.651(c)(2), 29 CFR 1926.65 l(g)(l)(I) and wilful violation of the standard at 29 CFR
1926.65 l(h)( 1) and 29 CFR 1926(a)( 1). The respondent timely contested the citations. Following
the filing of a complaint and answer and pursuant to a notice of hearing, the case came on to be heard
inNew York, N.Y. onNovember 30,1995, December 1,1995 and April 24, 1996. No jurisdictional
issues are in dispute, the parties having pleaded sufficient facts to establish that the respondent is
subject to the Act and the Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subiect matter.
DISCUSSION
At the continued hearing held on April 24, 1996, the parties, through amgent enorts of
counsel with the assistance of the Court achieved a settlement and spread said agreement on the
record at the proceeding. The statements of settlement made at the hearing have been reduced to a
written stipulated settlement.
ORDER
The terms and conditions of the stipulated settlement, incorporated herein in its entirety, are
approved.
Chief Judge
DATED: JK - 2 ‘=
Washington, D.C.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
------------------I----- ------ --w--m
X
&BERT B. REICH, Secretary of Labor, :
United States Department of Labor,
.. OSHRC Docket
Complainant,
.
. No . 95-1095
v.
..
LU MAR ENTERPRISES, INC.,
..
Respondent.
..
------------------------------- ----w--w -X
ORDER
Respondent in OSHRC Docket No. 95-1095 by a letter dated
June 6, 1995 contested two (2) citations issued to it by
Complainant on May 17, 1995. In that letter, Respondent also
contested the penalties proposed by Complainant for the citations.
An executed Stipulated Settlement has been received from
the parties, and this Stipulation addresses all matters at issue
between the parties in this proceeding. The Stipulation having
been read and considered it is hereby
ORDERED: (1) That the terms of the Stipulated
Settlement are approved and incorporated as part of this Order; and
(2) That this Order I pursuant to Section 12(j) of the
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 661(j), will become the final order of the
Commission at the expiration of 30 days from the date of docketing
by the Executive Secretary, unless within that time a member of the
Commission directs that it be reviewed.
Dated this &&day of
1996.
SO ORDERED: ,.*"3
4-b'. .f
I'
:2*‘
Chief Judge, Occupational Safety
& Health Review Commission
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1996, 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.