Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02596/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02596-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Helen Middlehurst
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

_, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

HELEN MIDDLEHURST, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FI LED 

United States Court of App...-.ils 

AUG 1 O 1989 

ROBERT L. H~OECKER 

Clerk 

v . 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

No. 88-2596 

(D.C. No. 85-Z-2567) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

ha s determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34( a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Helen Middlehurst brought this action against the 

Unit ed States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 13 46(b), 2671-2680. The complaint alleged that the United 

States, through OSHA and its employees, was negligent in 

i nspecting and supervising the safety of the premises of her 

employer, Mountain States Metal Products, and that this negligence 

was t he proximate cause of her injury. The district court granted 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

t he case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

Appellate Case: 88-2596 Document: 01019974703 Date Filed: 08/10/1989 Page: 1 
the government's motion to dismiss the complaint, or 

alternatively, granted the government's motion for summary 

j udgment. 

We affirm the district court's dismissal of this action on 

t he basis of the FTCA's discretionary function exception, 28 

U.S.C. § 2680(a). This case is indistinguishable from our 

decision in Russell v. United States, 763 F.2d 786 (10th Cir. 

1985) (per curiam), in which we similarly affirmed the dismissal 

of a complaint alleging that employees of the Mine Safety and 

Healt h Administration were negligent in their inspections of a 

Ut ah coal mine. Id. at 786. Other circuits have similarly 

rejected claims based on negligent inspection by OSHA officials. 

See, ~, Judy~ Department of Labor, 864 F.2d 83, 84 (8th Cir. 

1 988 ); Galvin~ OSHA, 860 F.2d 181, 183-84 (5th Cir. 1988) 

(dictum); Cunningham v. United States, 786 F.2d 1445, 1447 (9th 

Cir. 1986). 

The plaintiff contends that the discretionary function 

except ion is inapplicable here because her suit charges OSHA 

i nspectors with "failing to act in accord with a specific 

mandatory directive." Berkovitz~ Berkovitz~ United States, 

108 S. Ct. 1954, 1963 (1988). We disagree. The plaintiff has 

fail ed to identify any statutes, regulations, or policies which 

prescribe mandatory duties with sufficient specificity to bring 

this case within the scope of the mandatory duty exception stated 

in Berkovitz. The plaintiff cites an OSHA regulation stating that 

"[i] nspections shall be conducted in accordance with the 

requirement of this part," 29 C.F.R. § 1903.7(f) (1988) (emphasis 

36.3. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2596 Document: 01019974703 Date Filed: 08/10/1989 Page: 2 
' ... 

added), as the "most glaring example" of the existence of such a 

mandatory requirement. This provision plainly refers to the 

general manner of conducting inspections prescribed by Part 1903 

of the regulations, and it does not impose any specific duties 

that were allegedly violated here. See id. § 1903.1 ("The purpose 

of this Part 1903 is to prescribe rules and to set forth general 

polici es for enforcement of the inspection, citation, and proposed 

penalty provisions of the Act.'') Although OSHA regulations do 

contai n mandatory provisions requiring action on the part of an 

OSHA official whose inspection has uncovered a violation, we find 

no simi lar mandatory provisions concerning the manner in which 

s uch inspections must be performed. See Judy, 864 F.2d at 84. 

The judgment of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith . 

ENTERED FOR THE COCRT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2596 Document: 01019974703 Date Filed: 08/10/1989 Page: 3