Secretary of Labor v. Arthur Overgaard-Div./Mathy Construction Company (ALJ decision, July 25, 1989)

Secretary of Labor v. Arthur Overgaard-Div./Mathy Construction Company (FMSHRC LAKE 89-45-M): Settlement approved after fatal tail-pulley accident

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
LAKE 89-45-M
Decided
July 25, 1989
Presiding judge
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-17

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1989 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1989
The MSHA 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 ALJ settlement order, not Commission precedent
This order approved a settlement of a civil penalty proceeding. It became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. The full text below is an OCR transcription from the official FMSHRC release. Obvious OCR misreads have been corrected and uncertain text is marked [illegible].
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Transcribed from a scanned original: FMSHRC released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary alleged that a 52-inch self-cleaning tail pulley on a crusher discharge belt conveyor was not guarded, and an employee became entangled and suffered fatal injuries. The violation was cited under 30 C.F.R. § 56.14001. The parties proposed reducing the penalty from $5,000 to $3,700 because the operator's negligence was viewed as moderate, the area was supposed to be off limits to employees, the violation was promptly abated, and the small operator had no violation history in the prior two years. Judge Paul Merlin approved the settlement and ordered payment of $3,700 within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard: 30 C.F.R. § 56.14001
  • Outcome: The $3,700 settlement was approved and ordered paid within 30 days.
  • Key point: The settlement considered the operator's degree of negligence, its directions restricting access, prompt abatement, size, and recent violation history.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1730 K STREET NW, 6TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

July 25, 1989

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
: CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
:
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
: Docket No. LAKE 89-45-M
Petitioner : A. C. No. 47-02651-05501
v. : Portable [illegible] Plant
:
ARTHUR OVERGAARD-DIV./MATHY :
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
:
Respondent :

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
ORDER TO PAY

Before: Judge Merlin

The parties have submitted a motion to approve settlement of the one violation involved in this case. The penalty was originally assessed at $5,000 and the proposed settlement is for $3,700.

The parties' motion discusses the violation in light of the six statutory criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977. The subject citation was issued for a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 56.14001 because the 52-inch, self-cleaning tail pulley, on the crusher discharge belt conveyor, had not been guarded. An employee became entangled at the tail pulley and received fatal injuries. The parties represent that the penalty reduction is warranted because negligence which originally was rated as high, is less than originally thought. According to the Solicitor the operator demonstrated a moderate degree of negligence because it should have known the pulley area of the rock crusher was not guarded properly. However, employees had been directed by the operator not to work or enter the cited area. It is not known why this employee was working in this area. The operator promptly abated the violation. In addition, this is a small operator with no prior history of violations for the preceding two years. Based upon the foregoing representations, I approve the recommended settlement.

1328

Accordingly, the motion to approve settlement is GRANTED and the operator is ORDERED TO PAY $3,700 within 30 days from the date of this decision.

Paul Merlin
Chief Administrative Law Judge
Distribution:
Susan J. Bissegger, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, 230 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL 60604 (Certified Mail) James Naugler, Esq., Moen, Sheehan, Meyer & Henke, Ltd., Arthur Overgaard-Div./Mathy Construction Company, First Bank Place, Suite 700, Post Office Box 786, La Crosse, WI 54602-0786 (Certified Mail) Ms. Carol Jensen, Office Manager, P. O. Box 128, Elroy, WI 53929 (Certified Mail)

191

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA 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