Toxicology
Assessment VI
11. The two cases cited in the text, show that a court has the right to act differently based on interpretation and facts of a case presented to them. This being the commissions’ findings of fact must be based on “substantial evidence.” In the case of Austin Road Co. v. OSHRC, the court declined to enforce a citation set by the commission based that the decision was speculative and not supported by substantial evidence in the record. In this case, the Secretary failed to prove that the defendant was an employer, by not being able to prove that the actions of the defendant affected interstate commerce, and therefore they were outside OSHA’s jurisdiction. The court declined to enforce the citation. In the case of Builders Steel Co. V. Marshall, the court simply vacated or voided the order and remanded it back to the Commission to “redo” it to support it instead of refusing the order. Therefore, giving the commission a “do over.” In this case the commission failed to show that there was clear and “substantial evidence” that the regulation cited by the commission was accurate and true. The employer contested that the regulation cited was incorrect for the type of building that the employer occupied. That the building was actually multi-storied instead of a single story structure requiring fall protection at a different height requirement.
Bailey, M.A., Conn, E.J., Davis, F.D., Doran, W.K., Duggin, K.A., Flood, J.B.,(…)Siepman, K.B. (2008) Occupational Safety and Health Law Handbook. Lanham MD: Rowan and Littlefield publishing group.
12
If, during an OSHA inspection, it is determined that the employer violated that same standard multiple times or in multiple areas, this normally would be considered a single violation. But, this can also be considered an “egregious” violation and be cited multiple times. The text shows an example of an employer with machine guards missing from ten different machines as being a single citation, with the
11. The two cases cited in the text, show that a court has the right to act differently based on interpretation and facts of a case presented to them. This being the commissions’ findings of fact must be based on “substantial evidence.” In the case of Austin Road Co. v. OSHRC, the court declined to enforce a citation set by the commission based that the decision was speculative and not supported by substantial evidence in the record. In this case, the Secretary failed to prove that the defendant was an employer, by not being able to prove that the actions of the defendant affected interstate commerce, and therefore they were outside OSHA’s jurisdiction. The court declined to enforce the citation. In the case of Builders Steel Co. V. Marshall, the court simply vacated or voided the order and remanded it back to the Commission to “redo” it to support it instead of refusing the order. Therefore, giving the commission a “do over.” In this case the commission failed to show that there was clear and “substantial evidence” that the regulation cited by the commission was accurate and true. The employer contested that the regulation cited was incorrect for the type of building that the employer occupied. That the building was actually multi-storied instead of a single story structure requiring fall protection at a different height requirement.
Bailey, M.A., Conn, E.J., Davis, F.D., Doran, W.K., Duggin, K.A., Flood, J.B.,(…)Siepman, K.B. (2008) Occupational Safety and Health Law Handbook. Lanham MD: Rowan and Littlefield publishing group.
12
If, during an OSHA inspection, it is determined that the employer violated that same standard multiple times or in multiple areas, this normally would be considered a single violation. But, this can also be considered an “egregious” violation and be cited multiple times. The text shows an example of an employer with machine guards missing from ten different machines as being a single citation, with the