2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-24-2005 

# Ge nesi s Elde rc are v

. OS HR C P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-4380

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ge ne si s Elde r car e v

. O S H RC " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 361. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/361NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N I TED STA TES C O U RT O F A PPEA LS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o: 04- 4380 GENES I S EL DERCARE d /b / a COOPE R RI VER E AST CENT ER, Pet i t i oner

v. OC CU P AT I ONAL S AF E T Y AND H E AL T H R E VI E W COMM I S S I ON, R es pondent Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the O ccupa t i onal Safetyand H eal t h R evi ew C om m i s s i on

A gencyN o. 03- 0300 Subm i t t ed pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember16, 2005 Be f o r e : RO TH, M c KEE and FI SH E R , C i r cui tJ udges

OP I NI ON M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge. G e n e sis E ld e rc a re p e tit io n s f o r re v iew o f

a d e c isio n b yth e O c c u p a tio n a l S a f e ty and H eal t h R evi ew C om m i s s i on w hi ch af fi r m ed the Secr et aryof Labor ’ s ci t at i ons for s e ri o u s v io la tio n s o f

th e O c c u p a tio n a l S a f

e ty an d H e a lth A c t, 2 9 C .F .R . § 1910. 1030( d) ( 2) ( I ) . Fort he r eas ons bel ow , w e w i l l aff i rm the C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on a n d d e n yt h e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w.2 I. I nas m uch as w e ar e w r i t i ng pr i m ar i l yforthe part i es , w e nee d notr eci t e the fa ct s or pr ocedur al hi s t or y . A s w e s t at ed i n A ld e n L e e d s, In c . v. O c c u

p a tio n a l Sa

fety a n d He a lth R evi ew C om m is s i on , 29 8 F . 3d 25 6, 26 0 (3d C i r. 20 02 ): “W e revi ew the C om m i ssi on ’s fi ndi ngs of fa ctas concl us i ve i f s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence on t he r ecor d, cons i der ed as a w hol e. ” Id . ( ci t i ng 29 U . S. C . § 660( a) ) . A dj udi cat oryconcl us i ons ar e r evi ew ed t o det erm i ne i f theyar e “a rbi t r ary , capr i ci ous , an abus e of di s cr et i on, orot herw i s e noti n acc or dance w i t h t he l aw . ” Id . (cit ing 5 U . S . C . § 7 0 6 (2)(A ); At l a n t i c & Gul

f S t e v e d o r e s , I

n c . v . OSHRC , 5 3 4 F .2 d 5 4 1 , 5 4 7 (3 d C r. 1 9 7 6 )) .

II. T h e re lev a n t p o rtio n o f

th e O c c u p a tio n a l S a f

e tya n d H e a lth A c t re q u ire s th a t: E ngi neer i ng and w or k pr act i ce c ontr ol s s hal l be us ed t o el i m i nat e or m i ni m i ze e m pl oy ee e xpos ur e. W her e occ upat i onal expos ur e r emai ns aft er i ns t i tut i on of thes e contr ol s , per s onal pr ot ect i ve equi pm ents hal l al s o be us ed. 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 9 1 0 .1 0 3 0 (d )( 2 )( I) . "Engi neer i ng contr ol s " means contr ol s ( e. g. , s harps di s pos al cont ai ner s , s el f- s heathi ng needl es , s afe rm edi cal devi ces , s uch as sharps w i t h en gineer ed sharps i njuryprot ect i on s and n eedlel ess sy stem s) th at i so lat e o r rem o v e the b loo d b o rne p atho g en s h az ard f ro m th e w o rk p la c e . Id . § 1 9 1 0 .1 0 3 0 (b ). G e n e sis a rg u e s th a t th e se re g u latio n s a re u n c o n stitu tio n a lly v ag u e b ec au se th eyd o n o t spe cifica ll yiden ti fyad d -on d ev ices a s a m an d atory r equi r ement . T he A L J r ej ect ed thi s cl ai m expl ai ni ng that“[a ] dd- on needl e guar ds3

ar e contr ol s t hati s ol at e the bl oodborne pathogen haz ar d cr eat ed byus i ng a pr efi l l ed s yr i nge w i t houta bui l t - i n guar d” and ther efor e fa l l underthe def i ni t i on of engi neer i ng contr ol s . Pet i t i oner ’ s A pp. 12. T he A L J bel i eved thatthe abs ence of th e w o rd s “ a d d -o n d e v ice s” w a s irre lev a n t. T h e list o f c o n tro ls in th e d e f

in iti o n is p re c e d e d b y“ e .g .,” w h ic h in d ic a te s th a t th e lis t is illu s tr a tiv e , n o t e x c lu s iv e . Id . A ddi t i onal l y , G enes i s had fa i rnot i ce thatthe r egul at i on appl i ed t o add- on devi ces beca us e C ooperR i verE as t ’ s 2002 B l oodbor ne Pathogens E xpos ur e C ont r ol Pl an i dent i fi ed add- on devi ces as an “e ngi neer i ng contr ol . ” T he Secr et arym aypr ove empl oy erknow l edge byes t abl i s hi ng the for es eea bi l i t yof the vi ol at i ons . For es eea bi l i t ycan be es t abl i s hed bydemonstr at i ng t he i nadequa cyof the empl oy er ’ s s afe t ypr ogr am, tr ai ni ng ors upervi s i on. Secr etar y of Labor v . I

nt ers tat e Brands C or

p. , 20 O . S. H . C as . ( B N A ) 1102, *2 (20 0 3 ). In th e ins tant ca se, G en esis co n ce d es th at sev era l of it s em p loy ee s w ere in a d e q u a te ly tra in e d a n d f a ile d to f o llo w s a f

e ty p ro to c o ls . P e titio n e r’ s B r. a t 2 4 -2 5 . U ndera r eas onabl e di l i gence s t andar d, w hi ch “r equi r es adequa t e s upervi s i on of empl oy ees and the form ul at i on and i m pl ement at i on of an a dequat e tr ai ni ng p ro g ra m a n d w o rk ru les ,” a f a ilu re to m e e t ev e n o n e o f th e listed re q u ire m e n ts c o n s titu te s a la c k o f

re a s o n a b le d ilig e n c e . Secret ary of Lab or v. Mosser C on str. C o. , 15 O . S. H . C as . ( B N A ) 1408 ( 1991) . T hus , the Secr et aryhas s how n t r ai ni ng and supervi si on t o b e i nad equ at e. T his show i ng al so un derm i nes G enesi s’4

a ss e rtio n th a t tw o n u rse s’ f a ilu re to u se a d d -o n d e v ice s c o n stitu ted u n p re v e n tab le e m p lo y e e m isc o n d u c t. W e al s o r ej ectG enes i s ’ chal l enge t o t he pena l t ythatw as i m pos ed. W hen asses si ng pen al t i es, t he C om m i ssi on m ustgive due con si derat i on t o fo ur fact ors: the size of the employer’ s business; the gravity of the violation; the employer’ s g ood faith; and the employer’ s prior history of violations. Secr etar

y of Labor v . J. A . Jones C ons tr uct i on , 1 5 O . S . H . C as. (B N A ) 22 0 1 , * 1 5 (19 9 3 ). N o thing o n this reco rd e sta b lish e s th a t th e A L J m isa p p lied th e se f a c to rs h e re . M o re o v e r, th e p e n a lty a s s e s s e d w a s s i g n i f

i c a n t l y b e l o w t h e s t a tu t o r y m a x i m u m o f $ 7 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 29 U.S.C. § 666(b). III . Fort he r eas ons above, w e w i l l aff i r m the C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on and denythe p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.