REMAND ORDER On August 24, 2015, Chief Administrative Law Judge Covette Rooney issued a default judgment against Tom Reed Contracting based on its failure to file an Answer and respond to two orders issued by the judge. For the reasons that follow, we set aside the judge’s decision and remand this case for further proceedings in a manner consistent with this order.
DECISION AND REMAND Lake Erie Construction Co. is a highway construction company that is primarily involved in projects erecting signs, guardrails, and fences. On June 17, 2010, a Lake Erie crew was removing old guardrail posts along a highway near Minerva, Ohio. During this work, a crew member was electrocuted when electricity from an overhead power line flowed through equipment used to remove the posts..
REMAND ORDER This case is before the Commission on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. Secretary of Labor v. Kaposy, 607 F.App’x 230, 25 BNA OSHC 1469 (3d Cir. 2015). On appeal, the court
reviewed Administrative Law Judge John H. Schumacher’s Decision granting Respondent relief from judgment
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).1 In an opinion dated July 20, 2015, the court vacated the
ORDER OF DEFAULT On October 10, 2014, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty (“citation”) to Respondent for OSHA inspection number 990367. The citation alleged one violation of OSHA’s safety and health standards for a proposed penalty of $2,800.00. Respondent’s notice of contest was submitted by Thomas P. Reed and received by the Secretary on October 21. 2014. The Respondent’s notice of contest was docketed and the Commission’s Notice of Docketing was sent to the Respondent at its record address on November 4, 2014. The Notice of Docketing return card was not returned to the Commission.
PRESS RELEASE The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission seeks briefs from the parties and interested Amici on the issues raised under the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s General Duty Clause in Integra Health Management, Inc., which is currently pending review before the Commission. See OSH Act § 5(a)(1), 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1).
The parties and interested Amici are directed to address the issues delineated in the Commission’s Briefing Notice, as follows:
The Commission requests that the parties and interested amici brief the issues raised in the petition for discretionary review.
BRIEFING NOTICE The Commission requests that the parties and interested amici brief the issues raised in the petition for discretionary review.
The parties and amici should also address the following questions: Does the general duty clause apply to the condition as alleged by the Secretary—the workplace violence hazard of “[Respondent’s employees] being physically assaulted by [Respondent’s clients (known as ‘members’)]” alleged to have “a history of violent behavior”?
If so, did the Secretary establish that Respondent or its industry recognized the hazard and that a feasible and effective means of abatement existed to materially reduce the hazard?
In addition, the parties may address the effect, if any, of OSHA’s Guidance for Preventing Workplace Violence for Healthcare and Social Service Workers.