RENDERED: AUGUST 9, 2024; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2023-CA-1246-MR

SECRETARY OF THE EDUCATION 

& LABOR CABINET, 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE PHILLIP J. SHEPHERD, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 20-CI-00645

STERETT CRANE AND RIGGING, 

LLC AND KENTUCKY 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND 

HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION APPELLEES 

OPINION

AFFIRMING IN PART

AND REVERSING AND

REMANDING IN 

PART

**   **  **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, COMBS, AND EASTON, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: Appellant, The Secretary of the Education and Labor Cabinet 

(the Labor Cabinet), appeals an order of the Franklin Circuit Court entered on 

September 19, 2023. The circuit court affirmed portions of a final administrative 
-2-

decision and order of the Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission (the Commission) and reversed others. On appeal, The Labor Cabinet 

contends that the court erred by reversing the Commission’s decision with respect 

to: (1) its interpretation of a federal regulation requiring participation of an 

assembly/disassembly director at certain work sites and (2) a separate federal 

regulation governing workplace injury report forms. After our review, we reverse 

in part (as to the assembly/disassembly director) and affirm in part (as to injury 

reporting forms).

On August 23, 2017, the Labor Cabinet (through the Department of 

Workplace Standards) received a referral from the Shepherdsville Fire Department. 

The referral pertained to personal injuries sustained by three construction workers 

as they prepared a hydraulic mobile crane for use in the expansion of an overpass 

on Old Preston Highway in Shepherdsville. As a result of the incident, two of the 

construction workers were hospitalized. After an investigation, the Labor 

Cabinet’s safety compliance officer proposed citing Sterett Crane & Rigging, LLC,

(Sterett Crane) for violating a number of workplace safety standards. These 

violations included: failure to conduct necessary inspections of equipment; failure 

to remove damaged equipment (later amended to failure to provide a safe 

workplace by replacing worn equipment); failure to have a participating 

assembly/disassembly director on site; and failure to have a signal person on site. 
-3-

These violations were all categorized as serious, and Sterett Crane was to be 

assessed penalties totaling $19,600.00. The safety compliance officer also 

recommended that Sterett Crane be cited for its failure to post a hand-signal chart 

and its failure to complete injury report forms properly. For these violations, an 

additional penalty of $1,950.00 was proposed. Sterett Crane contested the 

proposals. 

Following an administrative hearing conducted in January 2019, a 

hearing officer recommended penalties for Sterett Crane’s failure to conduct 

necessary inspections; failure to provide a safe workplace by replacing worn 

equipment; and failure to post a hand-signal chart. Both parties filed petitions for 

review with the Commission. 

The Commission reviewed the issues and rendered a final order. It 

concluded that Sterett Crane violated safety standards by failing to conduct 

necessary inspections of equipment; failing to provide a safe workplace by 

replacing worn equipment; failing to ensure participation of an 

assembly/disassembly director on site; failing to post a hand-signal chart; and 

failing to complete injury report forms properly. It declined to issue a citation for 

failure to post a signal person on site. The Commission imposed penalties totaling 

$16,650.00. Sterett Crane accepted the Commission’s decision with respect to its 
-4-

failure to post a hand-signal chart. However, pursuant to the provisions of KRS1

338.031, it filed an appeal to the Franklin Circuit Court with respect to the 

remainder of the decision. 

In its order entered September 19, 2023, the circuit court affirmed the 

Commission’s decision with respect to the failure of Sterett Crane to conduct the 

necessary inspections of equipment and to provide a safe workplace by replacing 

worn equipment. It also affirmed the Commission’s penalties of $9800.00 for 

these violations. However, the circuit court reversed the Commission’s decision 

with respect to the failure of Sterett Crane to post an active assembly/disassembly 

director on site and to file proper injury report forms. Consequently, it vacated the 

penalties imposed with respect to these alleged violations. The Labor Cabinet has 

appealed the reversal of those two issues by the circuit court. 

On review, a court may reverse an administrative agency’s decision 

only where the agency acted “outside the scope of its authority, if the agency 

applied an incorrect rule of law, or if the decision itself is not supported by 

substantial evidence on the record.” Dep’t of Labor v. Morel Const. Co., Inc., 359 

S.W.3d 438, 442 (Ky. App. 2011). Questions of fact resolved by the 

administrative decision are reviewed to determine whether evidence before the 

agency “has sufficient probative value to induce conviction in the mind of a 

1 Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-5-

reasonable person.” Bowling v. Natural Res. & Envtl. Prot. Cabinet, 891 S.W.2d 

406, 409 (Ky. App. 1994) (citation omitted). We review questions of law de novo

and afford no deference to the administrative agency’s interpretation. Morel

Const. Co., 359 S.W.3d at 442. 

Title 29 § 1926.1400 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (also 

known as the Occupational Safety and Health Act -- or OSHA) governs federal 

workplace safety issues relevant to “power-operated equipment, when used in 

construction, that can hoist, lower and horizontally move a suspended load.” The 

parties agree that the provision applies to mobile cranes like the ones owned by 

Sterett Crane and provided for use at the Shepherdsville jobsite.

Provisions of Kentucky’s Occupational Safety and Health Act 

(OSHA), KRS Chapter 338, are patterned after their federal counterpart and are 

interpreted consistently with federal law. David Gaines Roofing, LLC v. Kentucky

Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 344 S.W.3d 145 (Ky. App. 2011). 

In order to establish a safety violation, the Labor Cabinet must prove the following 

elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the applicability of the standard, 

(2) the employer’s noncompliance with the terms of the standard, (3) employee 

access to the violative condition, and (4) the employer’s actual or constructive 

knowledge of the violation. Id. at 148 (citing N & N Contractors, Inc. v.
-6-

Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 255 F.3d 122, 126 (4th Cir.

2001)).

29 CFR § 1926.1404(a)(1) requires that assembly/disassembly of 

cranes be “directed by a person who meets the criteria for both a competent person 

and a qualified person, or by a competent person who is assisted by one or more 

qualified persons.” A “competent person” means one who is capable of identifying 

existing and predictable hazards in the surroundings or working conditions which 

are unsanitary, hazardous, or dangerous to employees, and who has authorization 

to take prompt corrective measures to eliminate them. 29 CFR § 1926.1401. A 

“qualified person” means a person who, by possession of a recognized degree, 

certificate, or professional standing, or who by extensive knowledge, training, and 

experience, successfully demonstrates the ability to solve problems relating to the 

subject matter, the work, or the project. Id. “Assembly/disassembly director” 

means an individual who meets these requirements regardless of the person’s 

formal job title or the designation of the person as management or nonmanagement personnel. Id. The assembly/disassembly director must understand 

applicable assembly/disassembly procedures specific to each crane to be readied 

for service. 29 CFR § 1926.1404(b). Before commencing assembly/disassembly 

operations, the assembly/disassembly director must ensure that the crew members 
-7-

understand: their tasks; the hazards associated with their tasks; and the hazardous 

positions/locations that they need to avoid. 29 CFR § 1926.1404(d)(1)(i), (ii), (iii). 

The following specific details are helpful to an understanding of the 

issues on appeal. Sterett Crane leases to its customers cranes and rigs of various 

types and sizes. It also supplies personnel necessary for the preparation of the 

cranes for operation on the construction site. On August 1, 2017, Sterett Crane 

agreed to lease two cranes to Murphy & Daniel, LLC: a 650-ton capacity crane 

manufactured by Liebherr and a 500-ton capacity crane also manufactured by 

Liebherr. The cranes were to be used to lift and set five steel girder sections of 

highway spanning a CSX railway line. In addition to the cranes, Sterett Crane 

supplied necessary personnel and arranged the shipment of counter-weight 

stabilizers and outrigger pads used together to prevent the cranes from tipping and

digging into the ground while in operation. 

On August 22, 2017, the two cranes and the counter-weight stabilizers 

arrived at the job site. The larger capacity crane was readied for service without 

incident. The following day, four of Sterett Crane’s employees held a job hazard 

meeting in which they discussed the work that lay ahead. A fifth Sterett Crane 

employee, a mechanic, was present but was not involved in the incident. An 

assembly/disassembly director was not designated at this meeting as it was not 
-8-

Sterett Crane’s policy to appoint such a person in connection with the Liebherr 

mobile cranes that it supplied to the job site on this occasion. 

At the time of the incident, the smaller capacity crane was situated on 

suitable ground and had been adequately stabilized with its outriggers and counterweight stabilizers. One employee was in the crane’s cab hoisting a TY frame to 

either side of the crane’s deck. The TY frame, also called a TY Guy, attaches to 

the crane’s boom and significantly increases lifting capacity. It consists of two 

sections that arrive at the site separated from the crane. The crane lifts each TY 

Guy and places it onto its deck. The boom is lowered, and the TY Guy is locked 

into place. 

The other three Sterett Crane employees were on the crane’s deck 

disconnecting slings and setting pins. However, before the pins had been set, the 

crane-operator “started to cable up the boom.” One of the TY Guys broke loose, 

shifted, and fell. The three employees working outside the cab were injured -- two 

of them severely. Following his investigation, the safety compliance officer found 

that Sterett Crane’s failure to designate an assembly/disassembly director may 

have contributed to the confusion that surrounded the preparation of the crane for 

service and that this confusion may have been one of the causes of the accident. 

On appeal, the Labor Cabinet first contends that the circuit court erred 

by concluding that the Commission had been incorrect in determining that the 
-9-

provisions of 29 CFR § 1926.1404(a) (requiring the presence of an 

assembly/disassembly director) applied under the circumstances. We agree with 

the Labor Cabinet. 

Upon its review, the circuit court was persuaded that participation of 

an assembly/disassembly director was not required at the Shepherdsville site 

because readying the crane was “not particularly complex.” Instead, it was 

convinced by the hearing officer’s recommended conclusion that the regulation’s 

requirement for someone to fill the role of assembly/disassembly director only 

applied to “more complex lattice boom and tower cranes, which require a crew of 

several men to assemble.” While the hearing officer acknowledged that provisions 

of 29 CFR § 1926.1400 are “arguably applicable to this crane,” he believed that 

where a crane could be set up by two employees, “there is obviously no need to 

appoint an [assembly/disassembly director.]” The Commission disagreed, but the 

circuit court agreed with the hearing officer rather than the Commission. 

In the construction and interpretation of administrative regulations, 

the same rules apply that would be applicable to statutory construction and 

interpretation. Revenue Cabinet, Commonwealth v. Gaba, 885 S.W.2d 706 (Ky.

App. 1994) (citing Revenue Cabinet v. Joy Technologies, Inc., 838 S.W.2d 406 

(Ky. App. 1992)). The most commonly stated rule in statutory interpretation is 

that the “plain meaning” of its terms controls. Alliance for Kentucky’s Future, Inc.
-10-

v. Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, 310 S.W.3d 681 (Ky. App. 

2008). Kentucky courts steadfastly adhere to the plain-meaning rule “unless to do 

so would constitute an absurd result.” Executive Branch Ethics Commission v.

Stephens, 92 S.W.3d 69, 73 (Ky. 2002).

While provisions of 29 CFR § 1926.1404 require that the 

“assembly/disassembly” of a mobile crane be managed by an 

assembly/disassembly director, the terms “assembly/disassembly” are not 

effectively defined in the regulation. In fact, “assembly/disassembly” is described 

only as “the assembly and/or disassembly of equipment covered under this 

standard.” 29 CFR § 1926.1401. Again, the parties agree that the crane being 

prepared for service on the day of the incident is “equipment covered under this 

standard.” 

In order to decide whether the crane was being “assembled” at the 

time the injuries were sustained, we have examined the preliminary activities 

performed on site. Sterett Crane describes the specific tasks undertaken to ready 

the crane for service to include placement of counterweights; extension of 

stabilizers; attachment of the TY Guys to the boom with a hammer and other tools; 

installation of pins; and connection and disconnection of slings. In its brief, Sterett 

Crane characterizes these activities as “assembly.” Given the ordinary and plain 

meaning of the term “assembly,” we conclude that the regulation encompasses the 
-11-

activities undertaken by Sterett Crane’s employees with respect to the structural 

components attached to the crane. 

We also conclude that the fact that preparation of the crane does not 

require a large crew is irrelevant. The provision expressly envisions a situation

where assembly/disassembly is being performed by a single individual. In that 

event, the individual must meet the criteria for both a competent person and a 

qualified person and is considered to be the assembly/disassembly director. 29 

CFR § 1926.1404(a)(2). 

Additionally, we agree with the Commission’s criticism of Sterett 

Cane’s reliance upon an excerpt from a United States Department of Labor 

publication. OSHA, The Small Entity Compliance Guide for Final Rule for Cranes 

and Derricks in Construction (2014), indicates that “[a]ccidents during the 

assembly and disassembly of lattice boom and tower cranes are one of the major 

causes of crane-related fatalities.” Additionally, it states that “[t]hese sections are 

designed to prevent such accidents by requiring safe assembly/disassembly 

procedures for lattice boom and tower cranes.” Finally, the Guide observes that 

“[h]ydraulic boom cranes are generally not assembled on site, but these sections 

contain some provisions, such as the requirement (section 1404(q)) for proper 

setting of outriggers and stabilizers, that apply to cranes with hydraulic booms.” 
-12-

 Despite Sterett Crane’s claim to the contrary, the language used in the 

Guide does not limit the applicability of the safety standards to lattice boom or 

tower cranes. Moreover, while its language reflects that “[h]ydraulic boom cranes 

are generally not assembled on site,” we are not persuaded that it intends to 

exclude hydraulic boom cranes -- as a class -- from the standard’s scope. We 

agree with the Commission that the language used in the guide would not lead a 

reasonable entity to believe that an assembly/disassembly director was not 

necessary to the preliminary work undertaken on the crane on the day of the 

accident. 

Notably, the Labor Department’s publication expressly advises 

readers that it merely “provides a general overview of a particular standards-related 

topic.” Additionally, it specifically warns as follows: 

This publication does not alter or determine compliance 

responsibilities which are set forth in OSHA standards 

and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Moreover, 

because interpretations and enforcement policy may 

change over time, for additional guidance on OSHA 

compliance requirements, the reader should consult 

current administrative interpretations and decisions by 

the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 

and the courts.

Finally, we disagree with Sterett Crane’s contention that the terms of 

an OSHA interpretation letter indicate that the preliminary work undertaken at its 

crane constituted merely “set up” and not “assembly.” An OSHA letter dated 
-13-

October 15, 2014, that was made available to the public, provided that “assembly” 

does not generally include every activity that requires a bolt or pin to connect 

outrigger pads or swing away crane extensions. The letter observes that the 

“complexity of preparing and putting together sections and/or parts of a crane at a 

construction site may vary depending on the model of the crane.” It noted that 

some cranes arrive at a worksite fully assembled and do not require “assembly”;

that truck cranes (as distinguished from mobile cranes) “require relatively simple 

assembly of the boom”; and that other cranes require “complex assembly such as 

adding counterweights or attachments. . . .” OSHA contrasts these preliminary 

“assembly” tasks with “set-up” tasks that involve deployment of outriggers; 

leveling the equipment; and unfolding and pinning the boom or swing-away 

extension. 

Sterett Crane claims that the “fact that the [crane] required the 

installation of counterweights and the TY Guy does not move the actions related to 

configuring the [crane] from set-up to assembly.” It argues that the complexity of 

the preparation needed to ready the crane for operation governs the distinction. 

 However, the language of the interpretation letter does not support this 

position. On the contrary, it specifically characterizes the positioning of 

counterweights and attachments as “complex assembly.” It is undisputed that the 

preliminary tasks being undertaken at the time of the injuries included the 
-14-

positioning of counterweights and attaching TY Frames to the crane to enhance its 

capacity. According to OSHA, these tasks constitute “assembly” and require the 

participation of an assembly/disassembly director. We are persuaded that the 

circuit court erred by concluding that the provision did not apply.

As if in anticipation of this conclusion, Sterett Crane nevertheless has 

argued that the circuit court’s decision must be affirmed. It contends that despite 

proof of the applicability of the safety standard, Sterett Crane’s noncompliance 

with that standard, and the impact of the safety violation on its employees’ welfare, 

the Labor Cabinet failed to prove Sterett Crane’s actual or constructive knowledge 

of the “violative condition.” Sterett Crane claims that it did not know -- nor 

through reasonable diligence could it have known -- that it was in violation of the 

safety standard requiring an active assembly/disassembly director. We disagree.

During the administrative hearing, the Labor Cabinet’s Compliance 

Safety Officer testified that a Sterett Crane foreman indicated that he (the Sterett 

Crane foreman) had been concerned that the company did not designate an 

assembly/disassembly director for assembly of these Leibherr cranes. However, 

his request for one had been denied. 

Sterett Crane was clearly aware that it did not require its employees to 

enlist the participation of an assembly/disassembly director for preparation of 

Liebherr cranes at job sites. The evidence also showed that it was aware of a 
-15-

specific safety concern in connection with its policy not to designate one. 

Although the Labor Cabinet must prove that Sterett Crane was aware of the 

circumstances, it does not have to prove that Sterett Crane had a correct 

understanding of its obligation to comply with the safety standard. See David

Gaines Roofing, 344 S.W.3d at 148 (quoting N & N Contractors, Inc. v.

Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm’n, 255 F.3d 122, 127 (4th Cir.

2001)). Sterett Crane contends that its erroneous view of the applicability of the 

safety standard prevents enforcement of the standard. That argument is untenable 

as a matter of law and of logic. 

Next, the Labor Cabinet argues that the circuit court erred by

concluding that Sterett Crane substantially complied with provisions of 29 CFR 

§1904.29, pertaining to the accurate and timely filing of workplace injury incident 

report forms. We disagree.

Pursuant to the provisions of 29 CFR § 1904.29(a), covered 

employers must record workplace injuries and illnesses on a set of three 

standardized forms -- Form 301 to report individual incidents; Form 300 to record 

all work-related injuries on a log; and Form 300A to prepare a quarterly summary 

derived from the log. An equivalent workplace injury report may be submitted in 

lieu of the Form 301. Id. The Commission identified several deficiencies in the 

workplace injury incident report forms submitted by Sterett Crane. According to 
-16-

the Labor Cabinet, the forms did not provide case numbers; adequate descriptions 

of the injuries sustained; or adequate details concerning how the injuries occurred. 

While the hearing officer agreed that the forms omitted some 

information, he recommended finding that Sterett Crane substantially complied 

with its reporting obligations. The Commission rejected this recommendation. It 

determined that the information provided by Sterett Crane “materially impaired the 

understandability of the nature of hazards, injuries and illnesses in the workplace” 

and concluded that the employer did not “substantially comply with its record 

creation and retention duties by providing information [via email] to a compliance 

officer.”

With respect to one employee’s injuries, “Employee A,” Sterett Crane 

submitted an equivalent form that it used to meet the mandatory reporting 

requirements established in our workers’ compensation statutes. Employee A was 

not hospitalized. His injury was described on the workers’ compensation form 

prepared by a Sterett Crane human resources manager as a head injury that was 

initially treated by emergency care and that it had occurred while the employee 

was building a crane. Among other information, the form provided Employee A’s 

name and address, date of birth, sex, social security number, and hire date; the 

employer’s federal identification number; and the time and location of the incident. 

The form described the crane being built and indicated that Employee A was 
-17-

“[p]utting a Superlift on deck” when the accident occurred. The form explained 

that the employer had provided the safeguards or equipment being used by the 

employee at the time of the injury. It listed witnesses to the accident and gave the 

name, title, address, and phone number of Sterett Crane’s human resources 

manager.

Sterett Crane’s OSHA Form 300 recorded Employee A’s injury a 

second time. It listed the employee’s job title and the date and location of his 

injury -- describing it as a “bump in the head.” Sterett Crane indicated that this 

employee had not missed work because of his injury. Sterett Crane’s OSHA Form 

300A recorded Employee A’s injury a third time. 

With respect to the injuries of the second employee, “Employee B,” 

Sterett Crane submitted an equivalent form used to meet our workers’ 

compensation requirements; an OSHA Form 301; an OSHA Form 300; and an 

OSHA Form 300A. The employee’s injuries were described on the OSHA Form 

301 as “Back, ankle” requiring emergency care and hospitalization at a University 

of Louisville facility for more than 24 hours. The form indicated that the injuries 

sustained were directly caused by a Y Guide. It indicated that while Employee B 

was standing on a crane deck, building the crane, a “[l]oad still secured when lift 

attempted resulted in employee being struck.” The OSHA form included a case 

number derived from its OSHA Log; the date and time of the injury; and the 
-18-

employee’s name, address, date of birth, hire date, and sex. Every space for entry 

of required information was completed by Sterett Crane’s human resources 

manager, who provided her name, title, and phone number. 

The workers’ compensation form provided by Sterett Crane (second 

recording) gave Employee B’s name and address, date of birth, sex, social security 

number, and hire date; the employer’s federal identification number; and time and 

location of the incident. It listed witnesses to the accident and gave the name, title, 

address, and phone number of Sterett Crane’s human resources manager. The 

form described the crane being built and indicated that Employee B was “[p]utting 

a Superlift on deck” when the accident occurred. The form explained that the 

employer had provided the safeguards or equipment being used by the employee at 

the time of the injury. Finally, it listed witnesses to the accident and gave the 

name, title, address, and phone number of Sterett’s human resources manager.

Sterett Crane’s OSHA Form 300 recorded Employee B’s injury a third 

time. It listed the employee’s job title, the date and location of his injury, 

describing it as a “Broken ankle, Back injury.” Sterett Crane indicated that this 

employee required time away from work because of his injury. Sterett Crane’s 

OSHA Form 300A recorded Employee B’s injuries a fourth time. 

With respect to the third employee’s injuries, “Employee C,” Sterett 

Crane submitted an equivalent form that it used to meet the mandatory reporting 
-19-

requirements established in our workers’ compensation statutes. Employee C’s 

injuries were described by Sterett Crane’s human resources manager as affecting 

his arm, torso, and hip and indicated that his injuries were initially treated by 

emergency care and required hospitalization for more than 24 hours at University 

of Louisville Hospital. It explained that the injuries had occurred while Employee 

C was building a crane. Among other information, the form provided Employee 

C’s name and address, date of birth, sex, social security number, and hire date; the 

employer’s federal identification number; and time and location of the incident. 

The form described the crane being built and indicated that Employee C was 

“[p]utting a Superlift on deck” when the accident occurred. The form explained 

that the employer had provided the safeguards or equipment being used by the 

employee at the time of the injury. Again, finally, it listed witnesses to the 

accident and gave the name, title, address, and phone number of Sterett Crane’s 

human resources manager.

Sterett Crane’s OSHA Form 300 recorded Employee C’s injury a 

second time. It listed the employee’s job title, the date and location of his injury, 

describing it as a “broken arm, chest laceration, and bruised hip.” Sterett Crane 

indicated that this employee had missed work because of his injury. Sterett 

Crane’s OSHA Form 300A recorded Employee C’s injury a third time. 
-20-

In an email sent on the evening of the incident, Sterett Crane notified 

the Labor Cabinet of the date and location of its employees when the injuries were 

sustained. It indicated that two of its three employees remained hospitalized as a

result of their injuries. Sterett Crane indicated its willingness to provide any 

additional information required and provided a contact number. A subsequent 

email sent later in the evening provided an update with respect to each employee’s 

specific injuries. 

The Labor Cabinet’s safety compliance officer contended that the 

information provided for Employee A failed to identify his injury; failed to provide 

a sequence of events or identify objects that directly caused his injury; and failed to 

provide the case number linking his injury to the injury reported under his name on 

the OSHA Form 300. He contended that the information submitted in relation to 

Employee B failed to identify “the part of the body that was affected”; failed to 

provide “the case number from the log . . . type of injury or illness. . . and 

description.” 

In his recommended order, the hearing officer observed that OSHA 

reporting regulations were designed to collect information about workplace injuries 

and fatalities relevant to its study of trends in the workplace. He found that the 

forms Sterett Crane submitted for each employee had sufficiently fulfilled their 
-21-

purposes. He concluded that Sterett Crane substantially complied with the 

reporting requirement and did not violate the standard. We agree.

The Commission’s criticism of how Sterett Crane reported its 

employees’ injuries on government forms is not well founded. In the multitude of 

forms submitted, Sterett Crane provided information necessary to allow the agency 

to ascertain the nature and extent of the injuries its employee’s sustained. The 

circuit court was correct in concluding that the submissions adequately satisfy the 

reporting requirements of 29 CFR § 1904.29(a).

To recapitulate, we affirm the circuit court with respect to the 

reporting requirement for injuries but reverse as to its determination that the 

participation of an assembly/disassembly director was not required. We agree with 

the Labor Cabinet’s interpretation that OSHA would indeed apply to require an 

assembly/disassembly director. Therefore, we remand this case to the Franklin 

Circuit Court for entry of an order consistent with our holding in order that any

penalties thus affected can be adjusted accordingly.

ALL CONCUR.
-22-

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

James Leif Sanders

Frankfort, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE STERETT 

CRANE AND RIGGING, LLC:

John David Meyer

Owensboro, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEE THE 

KENTUCKY OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW 

COMMISSION:

E.H. “Chip” Smith, IV

Frankfort, Kentucky