<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
		<title>TESSIER’S, INC., and its successors, OSHRC Docket No. 18-0859</title>
		<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8"/>
		<style type="text/css">
 p.hiddenParagraph { visibility:hidden } 
 p { widows:0; orphans:0; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; widows:0; orphans:0; margin-top:0; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; color:WindowText; } 
 p { font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman;  }  p.style_Normal { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_Normal span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } 
 table.style_TableNormal { } 
 p.style_BalloonText { font-size:9pt; font-family:Segoe UI; } 
.style_BalloonText span { font-family:Segoe UI; } 
 span.style_BalloonTextChar { font-size:9pt; font-family:Segoe UI; } 
.style_BalloonTextChar span { font-family:Segoe UI; } 
 p.style_ListParagraph { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; margin-left:48px; } 
 p.style_Header { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; } 
 span.style_HeaderChar { font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_HeaderChar span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 p.style_Footer { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; } 
 span.style_FooterChar { font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_FooterChar span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 span.style_CommentReference { font-size:8pt; } 
.style_CommentReference span { } 
 p.style_CommentText { font-size:10pt; } 
.style_CommentText span { } 
 span.style_CommentTextChar { font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_CommentTextChar span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 p.style_CommentSubject { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_CommentSubject span { font-weight:bold; } 
 span.style_CommentSubjectChar { font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; } 
.style_CommentSubjectChar span { font-family:Times New Roman; font-weight:bold; } 
 p.style_FootnoteText { font-size:10pt; } 
.style_FootnoteText span { } 
 span.style_FootnoteTextChar { font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_FootnoteTextChar span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 span.style_FootnoteReference { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
.style_FootnoteReference span { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
 span.style_EndnoteReference { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
.style_EndnoteReference span { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
 table.style_TableGrid { } 
.style_TableGrid span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 span.style_PageNumber { } 
 span.style_Emphasis { font-style:italic; } 
.style_Emphasis span { font-style:italic; } 
 span.style_LineNumber { } 
 p.style_Revision { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_Revision span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 span.style_Hyperlink { color:#0000FF; text-decoration:underline ;} 
.style_Hyperlink span { color:#0000FF; text-decoration:underline ;} 
 span.style_cosearchterm { } 
 span.style_IntenseEmphasis { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#4472C4; } 
.style_IntenseEmphasis span { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#4472C4; } 
 span.style_PlaceholderText { color:#808080; } 
.style_PlaceholderText span { color:#808080; } 
 p.style_EndnoteText { font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_EndnoteText span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 span.style_EndnoteTextChar { font-size:10pt; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_EndnoteTextChar span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 span.style_UnresolvedMention { color:#605E5C; background-color:#E1DFDD; } 
.style_UnresolvedMention span { color:#605E5C; background-color:#E1DFDD; } 
 p.style_BodyTextIndent { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:0px; line-height:1; line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_BodyTextIndent span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 span.style_BodyTextIndentChar { font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; } 
.style_BodyTextIndentChar span { font-family:Times New Roman; } 
 span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } 
 p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } 
 span.BulletSymbol { font-family:'Symbol'; } 
 body { margin-left:76.8px;margin-top:48px;margin-bottom:67.2px;margin-right:76.8px;} 
div.basic { width:17.526cm;height:24.892cm;} 
 p.hiddenParagraph { font-size:2pt; visibility:hidden; } 
</style>
		<script type="text/javascript">
							var useragent = navigator.userAgent;
							var navigatorname;
							if (useragent.indexOf('MSIE')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="MSIE";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Gecko')!= -1)
							{
							if (useragent.indexOf('Chrome')!= -1)
							navigatorname="Google Chrome";
							else
							navigatorname="Mozilla";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Mozilla')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="old Netscape or Mozilla";
							}
							else if (useragent.indexOf('Opera')!= -1)
							{
							navigatorname="Opera";
							}
							
							function symbol(code1,code2)
							{
							if (navigatorname == 'MSIE')
								document.write(code1);
							else
								document.write(code2);
							}
							</script>
	</head>
	<body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><div class="basic"><div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:14pt; color:#00B050; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:14pt; text-decoration:underline ;">Some personal identifiers have been redacted for privacy purposes.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">United States of America</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<table style="border-collapse:collapse; width:auto; align:left; margin-left:-.191cm; margin-bottom:0cm">
				<tr style="margin:0;border:0;padding:0;visibility:hidden;">
					<th style="width:319.2px;"/>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; ">SECRETARY OF LABOR,<span>
								</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr style="height:.6cm; ">
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; ">
							</p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> Complainant,</p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; ">
							</p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> v. </p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; ">TESSIER’S, INC.,<span><span></span>
								</span>and its successors,</p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;background-color:; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; ">
							</p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> Respondent.</p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; ">
				</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; ">OSHRC Docket No.<span>
					</span>18-0859</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
				</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; ">Appearances:</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; ">Jennifer Casey, Esq.</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; ">, Department of Labor, Office of Solicitor,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; ">Denver, Colorado</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>For Complainant</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-left:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; ">Aaron Dean, Esq. & Kelly C.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; ">Engebretson</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; ">, Esq., Moss & Barnett, Minneapolis, Minnesota</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>For Respondent</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; ">Before: Judge<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-size:11pt; ">Patrick B. Augustine – U. S. Administrative Law Judge</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">DECISION AND ORDER</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>During the construction of an orthopedic and sports medicine facility in Rapid City, South Dakota, one of Respondent’s employees fell through a hole in the roof as he was modifying its cover to accommodate the installation of a roof curb.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref1" href="#ftn1">1</a></span> The employee fell twenty-two (22) feet to the second floor and suffered serious injuries as a result. Subsequent investigation revealed the employee removed the load-bearing edges of the hole cover while leaning on it, causing the hole cover to fall into the hole. Complainant cited Respondent for allowing its employees to modify a hole cover while it was being used as fall protection without taking additional measures to protect against the fall hazard below<span><span></span>
					</span>which it claims was a violation of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“Act”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-678. Respondent contends it did not know, nor could it have known, the general contractor failed to<span>
					</span>attach the hole cover to the building’s structure. Ultimately, as discussed below, the Court finds Respondent violated 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(4)(i).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">I.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">P</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">ROCEDURAL HISTORY</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Upon receiving a report of the above-described injury at the Rapid City worksite, the Sioux Falls OSHA Area Office contacted the Area Office in Billings, Montana—which was geographically closer to Rapid City, South Dakota—and requested assistance conducting the inspection. The Billings Area Director dispatched Compliance Safety and Health Officer (CSHO) Anthony Castillo to conduct a partial inspection of the worksite that was limited to the employee’s fall through the hole in the roof. (Tr. 76–77). After conducting an opening conference with the general contractor of the worksite, Layton-Gustafson, and Respondent, CSHO Castillo inspected the area where the fall occurred and conducted interviews of various employees. Based on his investigation, CSHO Castillo recommended, and Complainant issued, a Citation and Notification of Penalty (“Citation”) to Respondent, which alleged a serious violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.502(i)(3) and proposed a penalty of $7,068. Respondent timely contested the Citation, bringing this matter before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (“Commission”).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>On June 22, 2018, the Chief Administrative Law Judge designated this case for Simplified Proceedings under Commission Rule 203(a). Less than a week later, Complainant submitted an unopposed motion to discontinue Simplified Proceedings, which was granted by the Court. On July 18, 2018, Complainant filed its Complaint, in which he amended the Citation to allege a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(4)(i). On August 2, 2018, Respondent filed its Answer, which generally denied all allegations in the Complaint and asserted various general and affirmative defenses. The trial was initially set for two days, on April 4–5, 2019, in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. On the beginning of the second day, it became clear to the Court the parties would not finish their respective presentations of evidence in the time requested, so the trial had to be held over and reconvened for a third day on April 29, 2019. Both parties timely filed post-trial briefs.</p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">II.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">STIPULATIONS & JURISDICTION</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; ">The parties stipulated to, and the Court adopts, the following jurisdictional facts:<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Jurisdiction of this action is conferred on the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission by section 10(c) of the Act.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">2.</span>The Administrative Law Judge has subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the dispute in this case.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">3.</span>At all relevant times, Respondent was engaged in [a] business affecting commerce within the meaning of sections 3(3) and 3(5) of the Act and was an employer within the meaning of section 3(5) of the Act.</p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">4.</span>The Secretary timely issued the citation at issue herein pursuant to section 9(c) of the Act.<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">5.</span>Respondent timely contested the citation and proposed penalty at issue herein, pursuant to the provisions of section 10(c) of the Act.<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">6.</span>At all times relevant to this litigation, the Secretary employed Anthony Castillo as a Compliance Safety and Health Officer for the Occupational Safety and Health<span>
				</span>Adminstration<span><span></span>
				</span>(OSHA), assigned to OSHA’s Billings, Montana, Area Office. He served in that position and was an authorized representative of the Secretary at all pertinent times.<span>
				</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Joint Stipulation Statement</span>. The parties also agreed to the following “undisputed facts”:</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">1.</span>At all times relevant to this litigation, Respondent was under contract to install a new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system at the Advanced Orthopedic and Sports Medicine Institute (AOSMI), located at 1635 Caregiver Circle, Rapid City, South Dakota 57701 (“the worksite”).<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">2.</span>On or about March 8, 2018, Respondent was tasked with installing roof curbs at the AOSMI project. The curbs were designed to accommodate Air Handling Units (“AHU”) at a future date.</p>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">3.</span>The floor hole covers were manufactured and installed by Layton-Gustafson, the general contractor at the worksite.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:48px; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">4.</span>On March 8, 2018, a Tessier’s employee suffered serious injuries after a floor hole cover collapsed and the employee fell approximately 22 feet to the concrete floor below.<span>
				</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.318cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">5.</span>On March 9, 2018, Inspector Castillo initiated an accident investigation at the worksite (OSHA Inspection No. 1300671).<span>
				</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span></p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">III.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">FACTUAL BACKGROUND</span></p>
			<p style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">A.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">The AOSMI Project</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The AOSMI project was a joint venture between Layton Construction and Gustafson Construction Corporation, two general contractors that, for the purposes of the project, served as a single contractor. The joint venture did not have any employees,<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">per se</span>; instead, employees from each general contractor continued to work for, and be paid by, their respective employer. (Tr. 299–300). For the purposes of setting policy and hiring subcontractors, however, the joint venture (hereinafter “LG”) was a singular entity. (Tr. 299–300). As it relates to this case, LG hired MMC Contractors to provide the labor, materials, equipment, and drawings for the installation of wet and dry mechanical systems,<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">i.e.</span>, plumbing and piping and HVAC and ductwork, respectively. (Tr. 327). While MMC was principally responsible for the<span>
					</span>wet<span><span></span>
					</span>side of mechanical (plumbing), it hired Respondent to install “dry side” mechanical, such as air handling units, roof curbs, and ductwork for the HVAC system. (Tr. 81, 327).<span>
					</span><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
				</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">B.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">The Day of the Fall</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">On the day of the incident, Respondent had two crews at the worksite, totaling 14 employees. (Tr. 81, 848). At the beginning of the day, Respondent’s crews, as well as every other contractor at the worksite, participated in a safety stand down in response to a couple of near misses and injuries that occurred on the worksite up to that point in the project.</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref2" href="#ftn2">2</a></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr. 455). According to Jared Brandt, Layton’s project safety manager, the various trades gathered for a group discussion, wherein they were told to “get their house in order” by reviewing their respective scopes of work, identifying ways to cut down on injuries, and performing housekeeping. (Tr. 455–459). The stand down ended roughly mid-</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">morning,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at which time all of the subcontractors went back to where they were scheduled to work for the day. (Tr. 458–59). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>According to Carl Fleming, Respondent’s foreman, and as documented in their pre-task plan, Respondent’s crews were working in aerial lifts installing ductwork in Area C and Area A on the first floor and installing hangers and laying out wall openings in Area C of the second floor.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref3" href="#ftn3">3</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 703; Ex. J-4 at 70). At some point that morning, LG told Respondent’s crews they needed to shift gears and start installing the curbs on Area C of the roof. (Tr. 592). According to Jason<span>
					</span>Fenner, one of Respondent’s employees, concrete pads for the AHUs had been poured the day before, and the curbs needed to be installed before the roofers started installing roof membrane the following day. (Tr. 592). Even though the scope of Respondent’s work changed at that point, Fleming, who was the head foreman for Respondent, did not fill out another pre-task plan for the change in work. According to<span>
					</span>[redacted], one of Respondent’s employees, a new or modified pre-task plan was required when a new task was started. (Tr. 684). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Area C of the roof had five holes where three separate AHUs would be installed.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref4" href="#ftn4">4</a></span> Each of the holes was equipped with a cover, which was emblazoned with the word “hole”. (Tr. 341; Ex. C-3 at 10, 11, R-12). The curbs were designed to fit around the holes where the AHUs would be installed. (Tr. 338; Ex. R-10 at TESS000602). The materials for the roof curbs, which were mostly galvanized tin, were lifted to the roof and built in the location where they would ultimately be placed. (Tr. 82–84, 461–62). Once Respondent’s employees had built the curbs, they moved them into place around the holes where the AHUs would be installed. (Tr. 84–85). As they were moving the curbs into place, Respondent’s employees noticed the hole covers had an excess of overhang, which prevented the curbs from sitting flush against the holes’ edges. (Tr. 564, 567, 612). In response, Jason<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>[redacted], who<span>
					</span>were in charge of<span><span></span>
					</span>installing the curbs, decided to trim the edges of the hole covers to accommodate the curbs. (Tr. 565). Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>relayed his plan to Fleming, who acknowledged the plan to cut the edges.<span>
					</span>(Tr. 565). Respondent’s plan to cut the covers while they were in place was premised on<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>[redacted]’s belief the framework of the covers was bolted to the structural steel of the roof. This plan was not communicated to LG or MMC, even though representatives of both, including the carpenter who had fabricated the covers, were present at the worksite. (Tr. 454, 487, 1145). Had Respondent communicated with LG, or had its employees done a more thorough inspection of the covers, it would have discovered the covers on the roof were not physically attached to the structure of the building.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Respondent’s employees had to modify two hole covers to accommodate the curbs. On the first cover, for AHU No. 6,<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>cut a small strip of wood from the short end of the cover, roughly 1–2 inches x 3 feet.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref5" href="#ftn5">5</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 562–63, 566; Ex. C-3 at 3). Nothing happened during the modification of cover Number 6. This is likely because the cover still retained load-bearing capacity on both long ends of the cover, thus allowing it to remain suspended in place. (Tr. 102). On cover Number 4, however,<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>removed strips of wood from both the long and short ends of the cover, which produced a hinging effect.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref6" href="#ftn6">6</a></span> After removing a portion of wood on the short side,<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>were removing a strip of wood along the long side while<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>was leaning on the middle of the cover. (Tr. 646). Once enough of the strip on the long side had been removed, the cover collapsed, and<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>fell through the hole. (Tr. 577). Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>was able to catch himself and was assisted to safety by other members of the crew, who were standing on the outside of the curb waiting to push it into place. (Tr. 575–76).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">C.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">The Hole Covers</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>According to the evidence, there appears to have been different types of hole covers used at the AOSMI worksite, and the type of cover being used varied based on where the hole was located and the conditions at that location. While there is agreement regarding the fact that some covers on the second<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">floor of AOSMI were attached to the building, the evidence regarding when and how those covers were attached to the building is in dispute. As for the covers on the roof, the evidence shows they were never attached to the building, notwithstanding Respondent’s belief that they were. (Tr. 113–14, 490, 1147). Although they were not attached to the structure, the covers on the roof were modified before the concrete pads were poured for the AHUs. (Tr. 1003, 1140).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Paul Garcia, a carpenter for Gustafson, was initially responsible for installing the hole covers throughout the AOSMI project. (Tr. 1155). Initially, the holes on the roof were framed by “L” shaped bent steel plates, which were supported by underlying I-beams. (Tr. 1140; Ex. J-2). Prior to the installation of the concrete pads, Garcia testified he fabricated covers that relied on a 2x4 frame, which rested outside of the bent steel plates. (Tr. 1140). He set the 2x4 box outside the bent plate and screwed a sheet of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">plyform</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref7" href="#ftn7">7</a></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>into the box. (Tr. 1140). Later in the process, Garcia was informed he needed to modify the hole covers so they would not interfere with the concrete deck that needed to be poured for the AHUs. (Tr. 1142). In response, with the approval of LG Project Safety Manager Jared<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Bradt</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and Superintendent Marty Lieberman, he changed the structure of the hole covers so the 2x4 frame sat snugly inside the bent plate—as opposed to outside—and reattached the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">plyform</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to the top of the frame. (Tr. 1142, 1169). He referred to these covers as “friction” covers. (Tr. 1152). In both instances, the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">plyform</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">/plywood served as the load-bearing surface; however, in the latter iteration, the amount of plywood overhanging the bent plate was less, roughly one-half-of-an-inch to an inch. (Tr. 88, 1153–54). Garcia was still convinced, though he did not test it, the covers would hold approximately 600–700 pounds. (Tr. 1160).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Also</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at issue during trial was the makeup of the surface of the cover for AHU No. 4, where<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>fell. According to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Fenner</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, the cover was comprised of four pieces of plywood,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">including: two small strips that were no more than an inch or two wide, and collectively spanned the nearly eight-foot length of the cover; the substantial piece of plywood still attached to the frame after it fell through; and the three-foot by one-foot section found on the roof. (Tr. 584–89, 614, 682; Ex. R-27). Both<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Fenner</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified they had used a Sawzall to cut a 1–2-inch wide section on the short end (3-foot wide) of the cover and had begun unscrewing a separate, 1–2-inch wide strip along the eight-foot length of the cover when it collapsed. (Tr. 633, 667). They could not explain why a 12-inch by 3-foot section was missing from the cover and, ultimately, found on the roof where they were cutting. (Tr. 590; Ex. C-3 at 15, 16). That said,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">’s testimony at trial differed markedly from his deposition testimony, wherein he testified they removed a one-foot by three-foot section, as opposed to a three-foot by 1–2-inch section. (Tr. 646–48; Ex. C-3 at 15). At no time did they believe there was a hazard, however, because they believed the underlying 2x4 frame was attached to the bent steel structure. (Tr. 581, 638–39).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Conversely, according to Garcia, the covers of AHU Nos. 4 and 6 were comprised of a single piece of plywood, or perhaps two pieces given the space it had to cover. (Tr. 1158). He<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">testified,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>however, he would not have used an 8-foot long strip that was only 1–2-inches wide as a load-bearing member of the cover. (Tr. 1161). CSHO Castillo, who believed the hole cover for AHU No. 4 was composed of two pieces of plywood, appeared to agree, at least in part, with Garcia. (Tr. 266–270; Ex. C-3 at 16). Paul Adams, from Layton Construction, testified it was three pieces of plywood—the two pieces discussed by CSHO Castillo, as well as the 1–2-inch-wide strip that ran the eight-foot length of the hole cover. (Tr. 436–37; Ex. R-26). Jared<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Bradt</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, of Gustafson Construction, testified the cover was a single piece and the separate pieces were removed with a saw and/or pry bar. (Tr. 520). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The foregoing disparities make it difficult for the Court to piece together exactly how the cover for AHU No. 4 was constructed and how many pieces it was made from. The cut mark on the short end<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">of the 2x4 frame</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref8" href="#ftn8">8</a></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>lends credence to the testimony that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Fenner</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>used a Sawzall to remove a roughly 1–2-inch section from the end. It is unclear why<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Fenner</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>would also remove an additional 12 inches from that end of the cover, but the fact that a section of plywood with those dimensions was found on the roof after<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">’s fall provides a strong indication they did. Though the screw holes on the underlying 2x4 cross-brace appear as if the screws had been ripped out, there is still no explanation as to why that one-foot by three-foot section of plywood remained on the roof when everything else fell through. The lack of similar saw scoring along the lengthwise 2x4 underlaying the cover (across the top of the word “Hole” on Exhibit C-3, p. 15), coupled with the splintering around the screws in the 2x4 frame, seems consistent with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Fenner</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">’s testimony they were merely removing screws from a narrow section of plywood when it collapsed instead of using a saw to cut a piece of that length.</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref9" href="#ftn9">9</a></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "> Regardless of how it was constructed, though, Respondent did not provide the Court with any definitive evidence to suggest the cover, as constructed, was insufficient to support a load consistent with the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.502(</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">i</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">). As for whether LG failed to comply with the standards governing hole covers by physically securing it to the structure, the Court shall address that issue in Section V.1.b.i,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">infra.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>As for the hole covers on the second floor, the Court is again confronted with conflicting testimony about the way they were built and secured to the building. According to Respondent’s employees, they claim they saw covers on the second floor physically attached to the concrete floor with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">tapcon</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>screws, as illustrated in Exhibit R-12, prior to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">’s fall. According to Garcia, however, he was solely responsible for installing the hole covers prior to the accident and at no time did he use<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">tapcon</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>screws to fasten the covers to the concrete. (Tr. 1154–55). Instead, he testified any covers on the second floor that were fastened to the structure were simultaneously surrounded by guardrails. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">1147).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">The presence of guardrails around the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">second floor</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>hole covers was also noted by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Fenner</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">. (Tr. 594).</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Garcia testified it was only after<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">’s fall that other LG employees were brought in to modify all the floor hole covers. (Tr. 1155). In either case, there was a notable difference in appearance between the structurally fastened hole covers on the second floor and the covers installed on the roof.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">D.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Post-Fall Inspections</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.318cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">1.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Employer Investigations</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>After<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">’s fall, LG closed down the worksite and the employees who witnessed the incident were asked to complete a written statement of the events leading to the fall. (Tr. 407, 521–22; Ex. C-11). The<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">general consensus</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>from the statements taken from Respondent’s employees was they felt rushed to complete the job, they were mistaken in their belief that the covers were structurally attached, and they should have been wearing fall protection. (Ex. C-11). Two employees, including<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, reported the covers were insufficient and the wood cover should not have given way in the manner that it did. (Ex. C-11 at 6, 14). To illustrate what happened, the employees generated a diagram, which showed where<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was at the time of the collapse and how the plywood cover was constructed. (Ex. J-9 at 1). LG’s project manager, Jared<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Bradt</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, made a computer-generated version of the diagram, which he edited in an attempt to provide additional illustration; however, he admitted he made modifications that suggested the removal of a one-foot by three-foot section, which was not reported in the employee interviews. (Tr. 511; Ex. J-9).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Subsequent analysis by LG and Tessier’s led to starkly different conclusions. Tessier’s found the failure was due to the covers not being attached to the structure, which it believes is required and representative of industry standard. LG, on the other hand, asserts the failure was due to Tessier’s employees cutting the load-bearing portions of the floor hole cover without conferring with LG about the nature of those covers prior to making alterations. Irrespective of the cause,</span><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref10" href="#ftn10">10</a></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>though, Complainant<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">ultimately determined Tessier’s exposed its employees to a fall hazard by permitting its employees to modify the cover while it was in place without utilizing an additional form of fall protection.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.318cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:156px; text-indent:-.318cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">2.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">OSHA Inspection</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>As noted above, CSHO Castillo conducted an inspection in response to a reported injury at AOSMI. CSHO Castillo recorded his observations on video, conducted interviews, and gathered relevant documents, but he did not record measurements of the gaps remaining in the covers or of the individual cover pieces involved in the accident. (Tr. 220, 228–29). At the conclusion of his inspection, he recommended a Citation, which alleged a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.502(i)(3). After the inspection, Area Director Sheila Stanley held an informal settlement conference with Respondent’s Safety Director, Ron Faber, during which Faber attempted to show why Respondent had no liability under § 1926.502(i)(3). In response, Complainant amended the citation to allege a violation of § 1926.501(b)(4)(i), which is discussed in further detail below.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">IV.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">BURDEN OF PROOF AND LAW APPLICABLE TO 5(a)(2) VIOLATION</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; ">To establish a<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie</span><span><span></span>
					</span>violation of a specific standard promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the Act,<span>
					</span>Complainant<span><span></span>
					</span>must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the standard applies to the cited condition; (2) the terms of the standard were violated; (3) one or more of the employer’s employees had access to the cited conditions; and (4) the employer knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence could have known, of the violative conditions.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Ormet</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Corporation</span>, 14 BNA OSHC 2134 (No. 85-0531, 1991).<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.295cm; widows:2; orphans:2; ">Complainant<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>must establish his<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>case by preponderance of the evidence.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Hartford Roofing Co</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">., 17 BNA OSHC 1361 (No. 92-3855, 1995).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">“Preponderance of the evidence” has been defined as:</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:72px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">The greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:1.27cm; margin-right:54px; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Black’s Law Dictionary, “Preponderance of the Evidence” (10th ed. 2014).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">V. ANALYSIS, FINDINGS OF FACT AND LEGAL APPLICATION </span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; margin-left:120px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">1.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation 1, Item 1</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Complainant alleged a serious violation of the Act in Citation<span>
					</span>1,<span><span></span>
					</span>Item 1 as follows:<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; ">29 CFR 1926.501(b)(4)(i): Each employee on walking/working surfaces was not protected from falling through holes (including skylights) more than 6 feet above lower levels, by personal fall arrest systems, covers, or guardrail systems erected around such holes.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">a)</span>Tessier’s, Inc. at 1635 Caregiver Circle, Rapid City, SD 57701: On or about March 8, 2018, and at times prior, employees were exposed to a fall of approximately 22 feet to the concrete floor below, while making modifications to floor hole covers in order to set curbs for new HVAC units to be installed. The employer failed to provide an alternative fall protection system or ensure the existing fall protection remained adequate for employees that were cutting and removing portions of the existing floor hole covers.</p>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span>Citation and Notification of Penalty at 6.<span>
					</span><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
				</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The cited standard provides:<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; ">Each employee on walking/working surfaces shall be protected from falling through holes (including skylights) more than 6 feet (1.8 m) above lower levels, by personal fall arrest systems, covers, or guardrail systems erected around such holes.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; ">29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(4)(i). </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:168px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; margin-left:168px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">a.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">The Cited Standard Applies</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">“In order to establish a violation, the Secretary must show that the standards applied to the cited conditions.”</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Arcon</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">, Inc.,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>20 BNA OSHC 1760, 1763 (No. 99-1707, 2004)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Under Commission precedent, “the focus of the Secretary's burden of proving that the cited standard applies pertains to the cited conditions, not the particular cited employer.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Ryder Transp. Servs.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, 24 BNA OSHC 2061, 2064 (No. 10-0551, 2014)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See also</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">KS Energy Servs., Inc.,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>22 BNA OSHC 1261, 1267 (No. 06-1416,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">2008)(finding “the cited ... provision was applicable to the conditions in KS Energy's traffic control zone”),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">aff'd</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, 701 F.3d 367 (7th Cir. 2012);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Active Oil Serv., Inc.,</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>21 BNA OSHC 1092, 1094 (No. 00-0482, 2005)(finding “that the confined space standard applies to the cited conditions” because “the vault was a confined space”)</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:.635cm; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The parties spent substantial time arguing over whether any<span>
					</span>particular cut<span><span></span>
					</span>in the cover made by Respondent’s employees was such that the hole left behind fit the definition of a hole under § 1926.500(b). This explains why Complainant focused so intently on whether Respondent removed a<span>
					</span>one-foot<span><span></span>
					</span>by three-foot section from the hole for AHU No. 4, and why Respondent pointed out that CSHO Castillo failed to take any measurements during his inspection. Notwithstanding those arguments, the question of applicability is fairly straightforward.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref11" href="#ftn11">11</a></span> The fact there was a hole in the roof that required the installation of a cover is sufficient for the purposes of the standard regardless of whether any particular cut exposed a hole of sufficient size to fit the definition of a “hole” under § 1926.500(b). Alternatively, the Court nonetheless finds the removal of the<span>
					</span>one-foot<span><span></span>
					</span>by three-foot section of plywood from the end of the cover, which was found on the roof, indicates Respondent actually created a hole fitting the definition provided in Subpart M.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">As an initial matter, the standards found under Subpart M “set[] forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR part 1926”, but do not apply “when employees are making an inspection, investigation, or assessment of workplace conditions prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed.” 29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(a)(1). The AOSMI project is a construction workplace covered under Part 1926. Thus, as a general matter, the subpart M standards apply. The cited standard, as reproduced above, requires<span>
					</span>employers to protect its employees from holes more than six feet above lower levels and specifies how such protection shall be accomplished. Thus, the question of applicability is whether the condition precedent—a hole more than six feet above the next level—existed. Based on the plain language of the standard at issue, the Court finds it did.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Kisor</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>v.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Wilkie</span>, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2415 (2019) (holding that before concluding a rule is genuinely ambiguous, court must exhaust all the ‘traditional tools’ of construction, including the text, structure, history, and purpose of a regulation).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">According to § 1926.500(b), a “hole” is defined as “a gap or void 2 inches or more in its least dimension, in a floor, roof, or other walking/working surface.” 29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(b). In this case, there were five holes in the roof in Area C of the AOSMI roof, each of which had been fitted with a friction-style hole cover. The holes did not cease to exist simply because LG had installed hole covers; instead, LG took one of the enumerated steps (covers) under § 1926.501(b)(4)(i) to protect against the fall hazard presented by the holes. Indeed, under Subpart M, covers are required to be “color coded or [] shall be marked with the word ‘HOLE’ or ‘COVER’<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">to provide warning of the hazard</span>.”<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>§ 1926.502(i)(4) (emphasis added). In other words, the regulations note the hazard (e.g., a hole) still exists even though a protective element has been installed or implemented. Much like a roof edge equipped with a guardrail, the fall hazard does not disappear once the guardrail is installed; rather, it is merely protected against consistent with the dictates of the applicable regulation. Accordingly, the Court finds the standard applies.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Alternatively, the Court finds the standard applies based on the<span>
					</span>one-foot<span><span></span>
					</span>by three-foot section removed from the end of the cover for AHU No. 4. Although this piece is not specifically mentioned in the statements provided by Respondent’s employees in their post-accident interviews, such can be attributed to the fact the employees were focused on the narrow strips being removed at the time of the collapse. Just because the piece was not mentioned in their statements, does not mean<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>did not remove it. In fact,<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>testified at trial that, during his deposition, he admitted he had removed a roughly one-foot by three-foot section of plywood from the end of the hole cover prior<span>
					</span>to removing the 1 to 2-inch strip on the lengthwise portion of the cover, which ultimately led to the cover’s collapse. (Tr. 647–48). Given that<span>
					</span>[redacted]’s deposition was taken closer in time to the accident, and considering the disputed piece of plywood was found on the roof, as opposed to the second floor, the Court finds it more likely the piece was removed during the modification of the floor cover. A hole of that size is more than<span>
					</span>sufficient<span><span></span>
					</span>to qualify as a “hole” under Subpart M, which only requires an opening of two inches or more in its least dimension.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span>29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(b). Finally, though the underlying 2x4 cross brace, which runs across the width of the cover, shows signs the screws had been ripped out, the ends of the lengthwise 2x4s to which the one-foot by three-foot section was attached do not show a similar “volcano” effect, which indicates some of those screws were removed intentionally. (Ex. C-2 at 1, 4, 6, 7). Thus, the standard applies on this basis as well.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:168px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:168px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">b.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Respondent Violated the Terms of the Standard</span></p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Having satisfactorily proved the condition precedent—the existence of a hole on a walking/working surface more than six feet above lower levels—Complainant must also show Respondent failed to protect its employees from falling through that hole with one of the enumerated fall protection systems. While this incident occurred on a multi-employer construction site, this case does not involve many of the<span>
					</span>issues<span><span></span>
					</span>indicative of a typical multi-employer liability case, such as whether Respondent is responsible for the employees of another employer. Rather, the question in this case is whether Respondent violated the standard by permitting its employees to modify the fall protection system installed by the general contractor without utilizing other means of fall protection or otherwise ensuring the existing fall protection method would be effective both during and after the modification.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:216px; text-indent:-.318cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:216px; text-indent:-.318cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">i.</span>Respondent Failed to Protect its Employees<span>
				</span></p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Once<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>began to cut into the hole covers of AHU Nos. 6 and 4, albeit under the belief the cover was fastened to the structure itself, they undermined the integrity of the fall protection system and, thus, exposed themselves and others to the fall hazard posed by the hole beneath. They modified the hole covers, which were the only form of fall protection they used around the holes, without<span>
					</span>knowing how the covers were built. Such knowledge could have been gained through conducting more than a “visual” inspection or by communicating with LG, who built the covers, about its plan to make such modifications. This presented a hazard in at least two ways, each of which resulted in Respondent failing to provide adequate protection as required by § 1926.501(b)(4)(i). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent believed, without additional inquiry or inspection,<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref12" href="#ftn12">12</a></span><span><span></span>
					</span>the covers were structurally fastened to the bent steel plate on the inside border of the hole. According to Respondent, it was standard practice—and required by regulation—for hole covers to be fastened to the building structure. There are at least two problems with this assumption. First, the standards do not require hole covers to be bolted, screwed, or otherwise fastened to the building structure. According to § 1926.502(i)(3), which Respondent was initially cited under, “All covers shall be secured when installed so as to prevent<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">accidental displacement</span><span><span></span>
					</span>by the wind, equipment, or employees.” 29 C.F.R. §<span>
					</span>1926.502(i)(3)<span>
					</span>(emphasis). In other words, the intent was to prevent a loose piece of plywood or material from being kicked or blown off the roof, but the question of what constitutes such a cover being “secured” is not immediately apparent. The intent behind this provision was clarified in the preamble to the final rule, and OSHA’s response to various proposals. OSHA remarked, “OSHA has revised the proposed paragraph to state more clearly OSHA’s intent that covers be secured when installed so that employees cannot easily remove them, and so that wind and equipment will not accidentally cause covers to be displaced.” Safety Standards for Fall Protection in the Construction Industry, 59 Fed. Reg. 40,672, 40,716 (August 9, 1994). In its discussion regarding the use of color-coding or marking covers with the terms “HOLE” or “COVER”, OSHA addressed the issue of whether covers should be<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">fastened</span><span><span></span>
					</span>to the structure:<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span>Bristol Steel and the NEA noted the hazards associated with unintentional lifting/moving of covers and noted how such hazards could be reduced by marking or fastening the covers. Recognizing it would not always be feasible to fasten covers to permanent building materials without causing unacceptable damage, Bristol and NEA proposed the standard as an alternative: either mark the cover to indicate its function or securely fasten<span>
				</span>it to prevent unintentional removal.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-family:Symbol; padding-right:20px;">·</span>The United Union of Roofers,<span>
				</span>Waterproofers, and Allied Workers commented that covers should be securely fastened and that marking covers should not be allowed in lieu of fastening. Similar comments were submitted by other organizations.</p>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="text-align:justify; margin-left:96px; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id</span>. In response, OSHA “agree[d] that painting or labeling covers is necessary for the enhanced safety afforded affected employees”, but<span><span></span>
					</span>did not accept the recommendation that covers should be securely<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">fastened</span><span><span></span>
					</span>in place.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span> In other words, securing against accidental displacement is not the same as securing or fastening the cover<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">to</span><span><span></span>
					</span>the structure itself. In that respect, OSHA’s interpretation has been consistent: In response to a question about whether a product referred to as a “Hole in One Cover” met the standard’s requirements, OSHA noted the product came with “adjustable securing wedges that must be adjusted to fit the hole”.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span>OSHA Standard Interpretations,<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Duty of a Subcontractor to cover floor holes in a Multi-Employer work site</span>,<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">available at</span><span><span></span>
					</span>https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-11-17-0<span><span></span>
					</span>(November 17, 2004). The discussion of adjustable wedges to fit inside of a hole reiterates OSHA’s original intent to ensure the cover is secured against accidental displacement without explicitly requiring the cover being fastened to the building’s structure. Given the snug-fitting internal frame of the cover, and the combined weight of a three-foot by eight-foot area of 3⁄4-inch plywood and underlying 2x4 frame, as testified to by the carpenter that installed the covers, the Court finds they were secured against accidental displacement per § 1926.502(i)(3). (Tr. 1143) </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; ">As it turned out, none of the covers on the roof of AOSMI were fastened to the bent steel plate of the building’s structure. Instead, the load-bearing capacity was borne by the edges of the plywood that overhung the lip of the bent plate steel by anywhere from 1/2- to 1-inch. (Tr. 611). When<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>cut the short ends of the cover on AHU No. 6, they removed the load-bearing portions on the end, but the cover still retained substantial load-bearing capacity because<span>
					</span>both of the lengthwise<span><span></span>
					</span>edges remained intact. Although in no way definitive,<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>testified this lent support to what they already believed to be the case—the underlying frames were fastened to the structure. Unfortunately, when they cut sections from the short end and the lengthwise portion of the cover for<span>
					</span>AHU No. 4, they created a hinge that was otherwise unsupported from underneath. This modification rendered the cover on AHU No. 4 useless as a method of fall protection and exposed<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>to a nearly three-foot by eight-foot hole that dropped 22 feet to the second floor below. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Equally problematic is Respondent’s failure to ensure the employees engaged in modifying the hole cover were equipped with alternative means of fall protection. Respondent argues the removal of 1- to 2-inch strips of plywood from the edges of a cover that was purportedly fastened in place would not constitute a “modification” and, therefore, did not require back-up fall protection. The Court disagrees. First, Respondent removed enough material from both cover No. 4 and No. 6 that daylight shined through the cover to the floor below. Regardless whether any of these individual gaps constituted a sufficiently large hole for the purposes of the standard and irrespective of what Respondent’s employees believed about the manner in which the cover was secured, the cover was, in reality, modified in appearance and performance. Second, nearly every one of Respondent’s employees who filled out a statement after the accident<span>
					</span>opined<span><span></span>
					</span>they should have been equipped with alternative fall protection while modifying the covers, which served as the only form of fall protection against the floor hole. (Ex. C-11). Even Garcia, who was responsible for constructing the hole testified hole cover modifications should not be performed while the cover is in place without some other form of fall protection. (Tr. 1165–66).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; ">In addition to the removal of plywood strips from the covers, the Court also finds the use of a saw on the covers while they are in place problematic in and of itself. As illustrated in many of the pictures referenced above, the Sawzall used by<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>is not a precision instrument. In addition to cutting through the plywood surface of the cover,<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>also cut into the underlying 2x4 framework that lay underneath the surface. In that respect, the Court finds the act of cutting into an in-place hole cover, whether secured by friction or by fasteners, exposed<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>to the hazard posed by the floor hole due to the possibility that they could have inadvertently cut through the supporting framework of the hole cover.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Fabricated Metal Prods., Inc.<span>
						</span></span>18 BNA OSHC 1072, 1074 (No. 93-1853, 1997) (to establish exposure, Secretary must show “that it is reasonably<span>
					</span>predictable either by operational necessity or otherwise (including inadvertence), that employees have been, are, or will be in the zone of danger”);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">see also Pete Miller, Inc.</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1257 (No. 99-947, 2000) (finding nature of work employee performed on a roof near fall hazard, even though he never got closer than 8 feet to edge, made it reasonably predictable employee would enter zone of danger). Given that<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>were physically leaning on the cover while making these modifications, the Court finds their exposure to the hazard posed by the hole required additional fall protection methods.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:216px; text-indent:-.318cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:216px; text-indent:-.318cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:normal; padding-right:20px;">ii.</span>Respondent is Both a Creating and Exposing Employer<span>
				</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">In<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Summit Contractors</span>, the Commission described the different types of employer liability on a multi-employer worksite as laid out in OSHA’s multi-employer citation policy.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Summit Contractors, Inc.</span>, 23 BNA OSHC 1196 (No. 05-0839, 2010). In this case, we are concerned with two: creating and exposing employers.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(citing OSHA Compliance Operations Manual defining a ‘creating’ employer as one responsible for “creating a hazard endangering employees”);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">see also Southern Pan Services Co.</span>, 25 BNA OSHC 1081 (No. 08-0866, 2014) (“We agree with the Secretary’s contention that this question is answered by long-standing Commission precedent holding that an employer whose own employees are exposed to a hazard . . . has a statutory duty to comply with a particular standard even where it did not create or control the hazard.” (citing<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Anning-Johnson Co.</span>, 4 BNA OSHC 1193, 1198–99 (No. 3694, 1976)). There is, however, one slight different in this case as opposed to other multi-employer cases: this case does not address a general contractor that exposed a subcontractor’s employees to a hazard, nor does it address whether Respondent exposed employees other than his own.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See id.</span>, 2010 WL 3341872 at *5.<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span><span></span>
					</span>Instead, the focus of this case is whether Respondent created a hazard when its employees cut into the hole covers on the roof of the AOSMI building and, subsequently, exposed its employees to a hazard by failing to provide them with an alternative form of fall protection. In both cases, the answer is “yes”.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:264px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:264px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">a.</span>Creating Employer.<span>
				</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Complainant argues Respondent is a creating employer due to the fact it created a hazard when its employee cut into and modified the hole covers on the roof of Section C, therefore undermining the<span>
					</span>integrity of the hole covers. Respondent contends it is not a creating employer, because it did not create the hazard. Instead, Respondent argues, the covers installed by LG were already deficient at the time they attempted to modify them to fit the curbs for AHU Nos. 4 and 6 because the covers were not fastened to the structure. However, as illustrated above, the<span><span></span>
					</span>regulations<span><span></span>
					</span>do not require<span>
					</span>the covers to be fastened to the structure. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent argues the covers were deficient due to their inability to hold the required amount of weight. According to Garcia,<span>
					</span>he believed the covers could support<span><span></span>
					</span>600–700<span><span></span>
					</span>pounds. (Tr.<span>
					</span>1160). Respondent did not put forth competent evidence to suggest this assessment was incorrect, instead only providing speculation about the cover’s durability and weight capacity. <span><span></span>
					</span>As discussed at length in the preceding sections on whether Respondent violated the terms of the standard, the Court finds Respondent created a hazard. [redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>made cuts that ultimately removed the load-bearing portions of the hole covers without first verifying the covers were fastened to the structure of the building, as they believed. By removing the load-bearing edges of the hole covers,<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>created a fall hazard.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:264px; ">b. Exposing Employer</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">While Respondent has called into question whether the roof covers fabricated by LG met the requirements of §<span>
					</span>1926.502(i) in the context of whether it was a creating employer, Respondent failed to proffer sufficient evidence to establish that fact.<span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><a name="ftnref13" href="#ftn13">13</a></span> Irrespective of whether the covers were, in fact, faulty, Respondent was still obliged to perform a proper inspection of the hazard to which its employees were exposed. It failed to do so, and thus Respondent is also properly characterized as an exposing employer.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Even if the covers themselves were insufficient, Respondent still had an obligation to determine<span>
					</span>their adequacy prior to placing its employees in the zone of danger created by the purportedly insufficient covers.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Anning-Johnson</span>, 4 BNA OSHC at 1198–99 (exposure of a subcontractor’s “employees to a condition that the employer knows or should have known to be hazardous, in light of the authority or ‘control’ it retains over<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">its own</span><span><span></span>
					</span>employees, gives rise to a duty under section 5(a)(2) of the Act . . . .”). If the cover on AHU No. 4 was, indeed, as patchwork as Respondent suggests, this should have been obvious before cuts were made, and inquiries or further inspection should have been undertaken to determine its adequacy.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">, e.g., Hamilton Fixture</span>, 16 BNA OSHC 1073, 1993 WL 127949 at *16 (No. 88-1720, 1993) (“Where the alleged ‘violations [were] based on physical conditions and on practices . . . which were readily apparent to anyone who looked,’ they ‘indisputably should have been known to management.’”) (citing<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Simplex Time Recorder Co. v. Brock</span>, 766 F.2d 575, 588 (D.C. Cir. 1985)).<span>
					</span>Respondent’s<span>
					</span>self-serving,<span>
					</span>hearsay testimony about what other industry representatives<span><span></span>
					</span>told Faber<span><span></span>
					</span>about friction covers<span><span></span>
					</span>does not<span>
					</span>constitute competent evidence sufficient to undermine Respondent’s obligation to inquire<span><span></span>
					</span>about the manner in which the covers were installed or, at the very least, to perform an independent inspection of the covers. (Tr. 858–860). Respondent’s failure to so inquire prior to modifying the covers exposed its employees to a fall hazard.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Regardless of how the Court frames Respondent’s obligation, the Court finds Respondent is both a creating employer and exposing employer. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Respondent violated the terms of the standard as both a creating and exposing employer.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:168px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:168px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">c.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Respondent’s Employees Were Exposed to the Hazard</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>To prove exposure, Complainant must establish under longstanding Commission precedent “that it is reasonably predictable either by operational necessity or otherwise (including inadvertence), that employees have been, are, or will be in the zone of danger.”<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Fabricated Metal Prods., Inc.<span>
						</span></span>18 BNA OSHC 1072, 1074 (No. 93-1853, 1997). <span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">The zone of danger is the “area surrounding the violative condition that presents the danger to employees.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Boh</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Bros. Constr</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">. Co., LLC, 24 BNA OSHC 1067, 1085 (No. 09-1072, 2013)</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">(</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">citing RGM Constr. Co.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, 17 BNA OSHC 1229, 1234 (No. 91-2107,<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">1995)). </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">The zone of danger is determined by the hazard presented by the violative<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">condition, and</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>is normally that area surrounding the violative condition that presents the danger to employees which the standard is intended to prevent. </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">RGM Construction</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, Co., 17 BNA OSHC at<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">1234; </span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Gilles</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>&<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Cotting</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">, Inc</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">., 3 BNA OSHC at 2003.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span><span><span></span>
					</span>As discussed at length above, Respondent exposed its employees to the hazard presented by the floor hole by allowing them to make modifications to the hole cover while it was serving as a protective element without requiring those employees to wear an additional form of fall protection. By cutting away the load-bearing portions of the cover as it was in place, Respondent’s employees were exposed to a fall hazard of approximately 22 feet. </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>As argued by Complainant, such an action is no different than making modifications to an existing guardrail or scaffold, both of which require the use of fall protection when modifying, installing, or deconstructing the same.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g.,<span>
						</span></span>29 C.F.R. § 1926.451(g) (requiring various forms of fall protection when erecting or dismantling scaffolds). Respondent contends the cuts it made on the cover were not akin to modifications to other types of fall protection systems because cuts to a “properly installed” and fastened cover do not create a hole or compromise its integrity. Respondent’s argument does not hold water for a number of reasons, many of which have been recounted above: (1) § 1926.503(i) does not require hole covers to be fastened; (2) the hole covers at issue in this case were not fastened, which would have been discovered with a reasonably diligent inspection; and (3) even if the covers were fastened,<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>Fenner’s<span><span></span>
					</span>use of a saw on an in-place form of fall protection presented the possibility that the underlying framework could be cut and compromised, as illustrated by the cut marks on various pieces of the underlying 2x4 frame.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>There is no question both<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>were exposed to the fall hazard—they were working directly on the hole cover at AHU No. 4 at the time it collapsed. As for other employees’ exposure to the hazard, the Court finds Complainant overestimated the number of employees exposed. As illustrated by Respondent, a full crew, representing about half of Respondent’s 14 employees on site,<span>
					</span>left around lunchtime. (Tr. 99, 241). Thus, there were approximately 7 employees on the roof while<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>were making modifications. (Tr. 240). Although the other employees were standing outside the curb while<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>were cutting the hole cover, the curb did not constitute adequate fall protection because, at 39-inches tall, it is just short of the required height for guardrails. <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span>29 C.F.R. § 1926.502(b)(1). That said, the Court finds that only three additional employees—those that pulled<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>back from falling into the hole after<span>
					</span>[redacted]—were<span>
					</span>actually exposed<span><span></span>
					</span>to the hazard. (Tr. 576). Accordingly, the Court finds five of Respondent’s employees were exposed to the hazard.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:168px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:168px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">d.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Respondent Had Constructive Knowledge of the Hazard</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span><span></span>
					</span></span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; ">To prove this element<span><span></span>
					</span>of the Secretary’s<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie<span>
						</span></span>case, Complainant must show Respondent knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have known of the violation.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Dun-Par Engineered Form Co.</span>, 12 BNA OSHC 1962, 1965 (No. 82-928, 1986). In other words, Complainant must show whether Respondent had actual knowledge of the violation, or whether it should be charged with constructive knowledge. The key is whether Respondent was aware of the conditions constituting a violation, not whether it understood the conditions violated the Act.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Phoenix Roofing, Inc.</span>, 17 BNA OSHC 1076, 1079–80 (No. 90-2148, 1995). Complainant can prove knowledge of an employer through the knowledge, actual or constructive, of its supervisory employees.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Dover Elevator Co.</span>, 16 BNA OSHC 1281, 1286 (No. 91-862, 1993). If a supervisor is, or should be, aware of a hazardous condition, it is reasonable to charge the employer with that knowledge.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. OSHRC</span>, 623 F.2d 155, 158 (10th Cir. 1980). </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Actual knowledge is established when a supervisor directly engages in or sees a subordinate’s misconduct.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g., Secretary of Labor v. Kansas Power & Light Co.,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>5 BNA OSHC 1202, at *3 (No. 11015, 1977)<span><span></span>
					</span>(holding because the supervisor directly saw the violative conduct without stating any objection, “his knowledge and approval of the work methods employed will be imputed to the respondent”).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Constructive knowledge, on the other hand,<span><span></span>
					</span>is established where the supervisor may not have directly seen the subordinate’s misconduct, but he was in close enough proximity that he should have.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g., Hamilton Fixture,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>16 BNA OSHC at 1073 *17–19,<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>28 F.3<span style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">rd</span><span><span></span>
					</span>1213 (6<span style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">th</span><span><span></span>
					</span>Cir. 1994). (holding that constructive knowledge was shown where the supervisor, who had just walked into the work area, was 10 feet away from the violative conduct).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>To establish constructive knowledge, the Secretary must prove “that the ‘employer ... could have known with the exercise of<span>
					</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">reasonable diligence</span><span><span></span>
					</span>of the conditions constituting the violation.’”<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Contour Erection & Siding Sys., Inc.,</span><span><span></span>
					</span>22 BNA OSHC 1072, 1073 (No. 06-0792, 2007). Whether an employer has exercised reasonable diligence is a question of fact that “will vary with the facts of each case.” <span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Martin v. OSHRC</span>, 947 F.2d 1483, 1484 (11th Cir. 1991);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">see also</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Centex-Rooney Constr. Co.</span>, 16 BNA OSHC 2127, 2129 (No. 92–0851, 1994)<span><span></span>
					</span>(finding that a preponderance of the evidence established the cited employer was reasonably diligent);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Precision Concrete Constr.</span>, 19 BNA OSHC 1404, 1407 (No. 99-0707, 2001)<span><span></span>
					</span>(noting that Secretary has burden of identifying what reasonable diligence required).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent asserts it was not aware of the conditions constituting a violation, nor should it have been aware. Specifically, Respondent contends, as recounted multiple times above, that it was unaware the hole covers on the roof of the AOSMI building were not fastened to the structure itself. Complainant contends Respondent had both actual and constructive knowledge of the violative condition; namely, (1) that Fleming,<span>
					</span>[redacted], and<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>were aware they were modifying one form of fall the protection (the cover) without being equipped with another form of fall protection, and (2) that<span>
					</span>[redacted],<span>
					</span>Fenner, and Fleming could have discovered the covers were not fastened to the building with the exercise of reasonable diligence. The Court finds Respondent had constructive knowledge of the violation.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent’s employees were modifying a hole cover while it was serving as a form of fall protection without simultaneously protecting themselves with another form of fall protection. [redacted],<span>
					</span>Fenner, and Fleming were aware of this fact, as<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>were doing the cutting and Fleming gave his approval to their plan of action. While this provides some support for the<span>
					</span>proposition that Respondent had actual knowledge of the conditions giving rise to a violation, there is at least a question as to whether smaller cuts on the surface of a cover that was fastened to the structural steel would have exposed Respondent to a hazardous condition. As such, the Court finds the stronger case for knowledge lies in what Respondent could have known about the hole covers had they exercised reasonable diligence.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; ">“[A]n employer has a general obligation to inspect its workplace for hazards.”<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Hamilton Fixture</span>, 16 BNA OSHC 1073, 1993 WL 127949 at *16 (No. 88-1720, 1993) (citing<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America</span>, 8 BNA OSHC 1384, 1387 (No. 76-5089, 1980)). The scope of that obligation “requires a<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">careful and critical examination<span>
						</span></span>and is not satisfied by a mere opportunity to view equipment.”<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Austin Comm. v. OSHRC</span>, 610 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir. 1979) (emphasis added). Some factors to assess whether an employer has exercised reasonable diligence include an employer’s “obligation to inspect the work area, to anticipate hazards to which employees may be exposed, and to take measures to prevent the occurrence.”<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Frank<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Swidzinski</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Co.</span>, 9 BNA OSHC 1230, 1233 (No. 76-4627, 1981). Additionally, an employer “cannot claim lack of knowledge resulting from its own failure to make use of the sources of information readily available to it.”<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Wiley Organics, Inc. d/b/a Organic Tech</span>, 17 BNA OSHC 1586, 1597 (No. 91-3275, 1996),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d<span>
						</span></span>124 F.3d 201 (6th Cir. 1997);<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">see also N&N Contractors, Inc.</span>, 18 BNA OSHC 2121 (No. 96-0606, 2000) (“Reasonable diligence implies effort, attention, and action; not mere reliance upon another to make violations known.”).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span><span></span>
					</span>As it turns out, Respondent had all the information it could have possibly needed right at its fingertips, or at least very close by. First,<span>
					</span>[redacted],<span>
					</span>Fenner, and Fleming all testified they did not seek out LG to find out how the covers had been installed, nor did they seek permission to make modifications to the covers. (Tr. 529–30, 565, 629–30, 715–16). This is so even though representatives from LG had previously been on the roof and were at the AOSMI site at the time Respondent was preparing to install the curbs. In fact, Garcia, the carpenter that fabricated the covers, was at the worksite that day, and could have told<span>
					</span>Fenner,<span>
					</span>[redacted], or Fleming how the covers were installed.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See,e.g</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">.</span>,<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Wiley Organics, Inc.</span>,<span>
					</span>17 BNA OSHC at 1597,<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">supra</span>. Second, at best,<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>and<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>performed a surface-level, visual inspection prior to cutting into the cover. According to<span>
					</span>Fenner, they performed an inspection of the cover from above; however, his testimony suggests this inspection did not occur until they removed portions of the plywood, which revealed the underlying 2x4 frame. (Tr. 581). Even then, however, it was only the presence of the frame that led<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>to believe it was fastened to the structure; there was nothing about the frame itself or his inspection of it to support his belief. (Tr. 581). According to<span>
					</span>[redacted], they inspected the first cover they altered—AHU No. 6—but did not go down to the second floor to verify what they believed to be the case. (Tr. 630). Perhaps more problematic was the testimony of Fleming, the supervising foreman to whom<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>communicated the plan to alter the covers. Fleming was stationed on the second floor just below the covers and had a scissor lift at his disposal. (Tr. 685–86, 717–18). He testified he did not perform an inspection of the covers, nor did he believe he was obligated to perform an inspection of the covers before alterations were made<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">even though the covers were installed by someone else.</span><span><span></span>
					</span>(Tr. 704). He admitted this even though he also recognized his own obligation to inspect the area where his employees were working prior to work beginning in that area. (Tr. 706). Instead, he stated he just “expected” the covers were installed correctly. (Tr. 706).<span>
					</span>Third, even though Garcia testified the covers would not easily be moved, the frame was not fastened to anything—Respondent’s employees likely could have<span>
					</span>lifted up<span><span></span>
					</span>on the cover itself to ensure it was, in fact, fastened to the steel plate.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Respondent proffered a few reasons why its belief the covers were fastened to the structure were reasonable, none of which persuade the Court to find Respondent exercised reasonable diligence in inspecting them prior to making modifications. Respondent’s safety manager, Faber, provided hearsay testimony that no one he spoke to, either internally or in the industry, had heard of a friction cover. First, this was not entirely true, as<span>
					</span>Fenner<span><span></span>
					</span>testified he had heard of friction covers, albeit used in a different context with smaller holes. (Tr. 601–602). Second, as discussed at length above, the § 1926.502(i) does not require covers to be fastened to the structure. Indeed, as discussed by<span>
					</span>Bristol Steel<span><span></span>
					</span>in the preamble<span>
					</span>to the Final Rule, there are circumstances where the use of such fasteners is unacceptable due to the potential damage to structural components. Thus, there may be circumstances where the use of fasteners would be inappropriate. This last point is important, as reasonable diligence depends on the circumstances surrounding the hazard and the work being performed, which leads to a separate, yet related, point.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; ">This is not a situation where Respondent was simply relying on the adequacy of a hole cover to meet the minimum criteria for supporting the weight of men and materials as they worked in its vicinity. Under such circumstances, perhaps only a visual verification of the hole cover, i.e., ensuring it was in place, would be<span>
					</span>sufficient. In this case, however, Respondent was physically modifying the cover while it served as fall protection based on little more than an assumption about the<span>
					</span>manner in which<span><span></span>
					</span>it was secured against accidental displacement. Reasonable diligence under the circumstances required more than merely looking at the cover before deciding to cut into it.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See,e.g</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">.</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">, Prestressed Systems, Inc.</span>, 9 BNA OSHC 1864 (No. 16147, 1981) (finding employer’s failure to discover latent defect, whether because it failed to inspect or performed an inadequate inspection, illustrated a lack of reasonable diligence). Indeed, even if the Court were to accept Respondent’s arguments that other covers on the second floor had been fastened to the structure of the building prior to<span>
					</span>[redacted]’s fall, the Court would note two important details about the covers on the second floor illustrated in Exhibit No. R-12. First, the 2x4 framework for those covers is positioned on the surface of the floor, not underneath. (R-12 at 24–26). Second, from simple observation, one can see the plywood and 2x4s are bolted into the floor with<span>
					</span>tapcon<span><span></span>
					</span>screws (or the like). The covers on the second floor were different in appearance and orientation and provide no basis to indicate the covers on the roof were similarly fastened, once again highlighting the importance of context to the exercise of reasonable diligence.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:0cm; text-indent:1.27cm; ">Constructive knowledge, just like actual knowledge, can be imputed to the employer through the<span>
					</span>knowledge<span><span></span>
					</span>of its supervisory employees.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dover Elevator Co.</span>, 16 BNA OSHC 1281, 1286 (No. 91-862, 1993). If a supervisor is, or should be, aware of a hazardous condition, it is reasonable to charge the<span>
					</span>employer with that knowledge.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. OSHRC</span>, 623 F.2d 155, 158 (10th Cir. 1980). Both<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>and Fleming were foremen for the AOSMI project. (Tr. 625, 695). As such, the Court finds it appropriate to impute their knowledge of the hazard to Respondent.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Accordingly, the Court finds Complainant proved Respondent had constructive knowledge of the condition because Respondent failed to exercise reasonable diligence in its inspection of the hole covers prior to making modifications to them.</p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:168px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; margin-left:168px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">e.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">The Citation is Properly Classified as Serious.<span>
					</span></span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="color:#000000; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">The Court finds the violation was serious within the meaning of section 17(k) of the Act. </span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">If the possible injury addressed by a regulation is death or serious physical harm, a violation of the regulation is serious.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Mosser Construction</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, 23 BNA 1044, 1047 (No. 08-0631, 2010);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Dec-Tam Corp.</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, 15 BNA 2072, 2077 (No. 88-523, 1993).</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "> Unfortunately, the facts of this case illustrate quite clearly how serious the violation of the standard was—</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>suffered a serious head injury and multiple fractures as a result of his 22-foot fall from the roof to the second floor. (Tr. 645). That said, irrespective of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">’s injuries, the Court finds the hazard presented by the hole in the roof exposed Respondent’s employees to the possibility of serious injuries, as well as death, as a result of a 22-foot fall. Therefore, Citation 1, Item 1 will be AFFIRMED as a serious violation of the Act.</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">V.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Respondent Failed to Brief any Affirmative Defense</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span>Respondent asserted multiple affirmative defenses in its Answer to the Complaint; however, it did not pursue any of those defenses in its post-trial brief. As noted in the Court’s Briefing Order, “Issues not briefed will be deemed abandoned.”<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See Georgia-Pacific Corp.</span>, 15 BNA OSHC 1127, 1130 (No. 89-2713, 1991). Accordingly, the Court finds Respondent has abandoned its proffered affirmative defenses.</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:72px; text-indent:-1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">VI.</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Penalty</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Under the Act, Complainant has the authority to propose a penalty according to Section 17 of the Act.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span>29 U.S.C. §§ 659(a), 666. The amount proposed, however, merely becomes<span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>advisory when an employer timely contests the matter. </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Brennan v. OSHRC</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, 487 F.2d 438, 441</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">–</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">42 (8th Cir. 1973);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Revoli</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Constr. Co.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, 19 BNA OSHC 1682, 1686 n. 5 (No. 00-0315, 2001).</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">
					</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Ultimately, it is the province of the Commission to “assess all civil penalties provided in [Section 17]”, which it determines<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">de novo</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">. 29 U.S.C. § 666(j);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">see also<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Valdak</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Corp.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, 17 BNA OSHC 1135 (No. 93-0239, 1995).</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; ">“Regarding penalty, the Act requires that “due consideration” be given to the employer’s size, the gravity of the violation, the good faith of the employer, and any prior history of violations.”<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Briones Util. Co.</span>, 26 BNA OSHC 1218, 1222 (No. 10-1372, 2016) (<span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">citing</span><span><span></span>
					</span>29 U.S.C. § 666(j).<span><span></span>
					</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">These factors are not necessarily accorded equal weight.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">J.A. Jones Constr.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, 15 BNA OSHC 2201, 2216 (No. 87-2059, 1993) (</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">citation omitted</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Rather, the Commission assigns the weight that is reasonable under the circumstances. </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Eric K. Ho,</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>20 BNA OSHC 1361, 1379 (No. 98-1645, 2003) (Consol.),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">aff'd sub nom.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">,</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Chao v. OSHRC</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, 401 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2005).<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">It is the Secretary</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">’</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">s burden to introduce evidence bearing on the factors and explain how he arrived at the penalty he proposed. </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Valdak</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Corp</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">., 17 BNA OSHC at 1138</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">. </span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">“The gravity of the violation is the ‘principal factor in a penalty determination</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Calibri; font-size:11pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Assessing gravity involves considering: (1) the number of employees exposed to the hazard; (2) the duration of exposure; (3) whether any precautions have been taken against injury; (4) the degree of probability that an accident would occur; and (5) the likelihood of injury. </span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">,</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>e.g.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">Capform</span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">, Inc.</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, 19 BNA OSHC 1374, 1378 (No. 99-0322, 2001),<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d</span><span style="color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, 34 F. Appx. 152 (5th Cir. 2002) (unpublished). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Complainant proposed a gravity-based penalty of $7,068 for Citation 1, Item 1. For the most part, the Court agrees with Complainant’s various assessments as they relate to the penalty assessed. Complainant determined the hazard was of moderate gravity—even though the severity of injuries resulting from exposure to the hazard was significant, the likelihood of those injuries occurring was moderate due to the fact that Respondent spent a short period of time actually working on the hole covers.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">(Tr. 184–185). The Court agrees. Complainant also awarded a 15% reduction to its assessed penalty based on Respondent’s otherwise thorough and well-designed safety and health program, albeit one that was not carefully executed under the circumstances. Although Complainant does not award a discount for history if an employer does not have any inspections in the previous five years, the Court finds an additional discount is warranted under the circumstances. According to Faber, Respondent dropped its incident rate substantially over the course of his tenure with the company and has implemented innovative methods by which to ensure appropriate training has been provided to its employees and reduce safety incidents. (Tr. 830–31, 849–50). As such, the Court finds an additional reduction of 20% is appropriate and assesses a penalty of $5,655.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">O</span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">RDER</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>The foregoing Decision constitutes the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in accordance with Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<p style="margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:48px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="padding-right:20px;">1.</span>Citation 1, Item 1 is AFFIRMED as serious, and a penalty of $5,655 is ASSESSED.</p>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:24px; widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>SO<span><span></span>
					</span>ORDERED.</p>
			</div>
			<div style="border-top:none, 0, inherit; border-bottom:solid .053cm #000000; padding-bottom:.035cm; border-left:none, 0, inherit; border-right:none, 0, inherit; ">
				<p style="text-align:justify; margin-left:294px; widows:2; orphans:2; border-bottom:solid 0pt #000000;">/s<span>
					</span><span style="font-size:14pt; font-family:Lucida Handwriting; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Lucida Handwriting; font-size:14pt; font-weight:bold; ">Patrick B. Augustine</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-left:294px; widows:2; orphans:2; ">Patrick B. Augustine</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-left:294px; widows:2; orphans:2; ">Judge, OSHRC</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">Date:<span><span></span>
					</span>March 30, 2020</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; ">Denver, Colorado<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
				</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; "><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<table style="border-collapse:collapse; width:auto; align:left; margin-left:-.191cm; margin-bottom:0cm">
				<tr style="margin:0;border:0;padding:0;visibility:hidden;">
					<th style="width:184px;"/>
					<th style="width:478.4px;"/>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;width:4.953cm;">
						<div>
							<p>CASE NAME:</p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;width:12.954cm;">
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;width:4.953cm;">
						<div>
							<p>OSHRC DOCKET NO.:<span>
								</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;width:12.954cm;">
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_BodyTextIndent style_BodyTextIndent " style="line-height:1; text-indent:0cm; ">Service of the foregoing Order has this date been made by mailing a copy thereof via Electronic Mail, to the following:</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-indent:2.54cm; "> </p>
			</div>
			<table style="border-collapse:collapse; width:auto; align:left; margin-left:-.191cm; margin-bottom:0cm">
				<tr style="margin:0;border:0;padding:0;visibility:hidden;">
					<th style="width:336px;"/>
					<th style="width:288px;"/>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;width:8.89cm;">
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p>U.S. Department of Labor</p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p>Office of the Solicitor</p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;width:7.62cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="text-indent:2.54cm; "> </p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
				<tr>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;width:8.89cm;">
						<div>
							<p> </p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;width:7.62cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="text-indent:2.54cm; "> </p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>
					<span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span><span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Lucida Handwriting; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Lucida Handwriting; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:20pt; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Brush Script MT; font-size:20pt; ">/s/ Eliz R. Padilla</span></p>
			</div>
			<table style="border-collapse:collapse; width:auto; align:left; margin-left:-.191cm; margin-bottom:0cm">
				<tr style="margin:0;border:0;padding:0;visibility:hidden;">
					<th style="width:330.933px;"/>
					<th style="width:331.467px;"/>
				</tr>
				<tr style="height:.268cm; ">
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;width:8.954cm;">
						<div>
							<p><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">Dated:</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">
								</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">March<span>
									</span></span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">30</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; ">, 2020</span></p>
						</div>
					</td>
					<td style="vertical-align:top;padding-top:0cm;padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0.19cm;padding-right:0.19cm;border-top:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.954cm;">
						<div>
							<p>Eliz R. Padilla,<span>
								</span>Lead<span>
								</span>Legal Assistant<span><span></span>
								</span>For</p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p>Judge Patrick B. Augustine</p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p>U.S. Custom House</p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p>721 19<span style="position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">th</span><span><span></span>
								</span>Street, Suite 407</p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p>Denver, Colorado 80202</p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p>(303) 844-2282</p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p>(303) 844-3759 - FAX</p>
						</div>
					</td>
				</tr>
			</table>
			<div>
				<p> </p>
			</div>
			<hr/>"
      <div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn-1" href="#ftnref-1"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p>
					<a name="ftn0" href="#ftnref0"></a> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn1" href="#ftnref1"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">1 </span></a>. As explained for fully below, a roof curb houses an air handling unit (AHU) that moves air through a building’s HVAC system. (Tr. 82).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn2" href="#ftnref2"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">2 </span></a>. One incident involved one of Respondent’s foremen, Carl Fleming, operating a forklift in an unsafe manner. (Tr. 456, 537). Another incident involved a piece of sheeting that had blown off the roof because it was not adequately secured against wind. (Tr. 455–456).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn3" href="#ftnref3"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">3 </span></a>. Due to the size of the building, the project was broken down into Areas A, B, and C. (Tr. 83).<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn4" href="#ftnref4"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">4 </span></a>. One of the AHUs was unique and utilized the same hole for intake and output, whereas the other two AHUs had separate holes for those functions. (Tr. 339–40). <span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn5" href="#ftnref5"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">5 </span></a>. Others, including CSHO Castillo and Paul Adams, testified that the opening was 2–3 inches wide; however, no one took an actual measurement of the cut to verify this. (Tr. 412)<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn6" href="#ftnref6"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">6 </span></a>. The specific dimensions, which are in dispute, are described more in subsection C,<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">infra</span>.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn7" href="#ftnref7"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">7 </span></a>. According to Garcia,<span>
					</span>plyform<span><span></span>
					</span>is used to create concrete forms and is designed to withstand the pressure of concrete, and is, thus, stronger than plywood. (Tr. 1140–41). The references in the transcript bounce back and forth between plywood and<span>
					</span>plyform, suggesting that both were probably used.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn8" href="#ftnref8"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">8 </span></a>. For ease of reference, the Court is referring to the score mark as seen on Exhibit C-3, p. 15, on the upper right-hand portion of the cover when viewed with the word “Hole” in its proper, upright orientation.<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn9" href="#ftnref9"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">9 </span></a>. Similar scoring can be seen along the 2x4 that was on the short end of the hole cover. (Ex. C-3 at 16).<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn10" href="#ftnref10"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">10 </span></a>.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">See</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">American Wrecking Corp</span>., 19 BNA OSHC 1703, 1707 n.4 (No. 96-1330, 2001) (consolidated) (“Determining whether the standard was violated is not dependent on the cause of the accident.”),<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d in part,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">rev’d</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in</span><span><span></span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">part</span>, 351 F.3d 1254 (D.C. Cir. 2003).</p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn11" href="#ftnref11"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">11 </span></a>. On a side note, the Court would like to point out it did not conclusively resolve the issue of applicability on Respondent’s oral motion for judgment on the pleadings, which Complainant asserts in lieu of specifically arguing the standard applies. Rather, the Court found the evidence did not clearly preponderate against Complainant and rejected the motion on that basis. That said, given the<span>
					</span>manner in which<span><span></span>
					</span>the Court framed its ruling, Complainant’s method of argumentation is understandable. In either case, the Court will address the question of applicability based on whether a hole existed, which Complainant addresses in the section discussing whether the standard was violated.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn12" href="#ftnref12"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">12 </span></a>. Although partially discussed here, Respondent’s assumptions about the state of the hole cover are also germane to the question of whether Respondent should have known of the hazardous condition, which will be more fully addressed in Section V.1.d,<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">infra.</span><span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; ">
					<a name="ftn13" href="#ftnref13"><span class="style_DefaultParagraphFont style_DefaultParagraphFont style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">13 </span></a>. While it is Complainant’s burden to establish a violation of the cited standard, Respondent is obligated to prove all facts relevant to its defense.<span>
					</span><span class="style_Emphasis style_Emphasis " style="font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">Hamilton Fixture</span>, 16 BNA OSHC 1073, 1077 (No. 88-1720<span style="color:#212121; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">, 1993)<span>
						</span></span><span class="style_Emphasis style_Emphasis " style="color:#212121; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; ">aff'd</span><span style="color:#212121; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span>28 F.3d 1213 (6th Cir. 1994)<span style="color:#212121; background-color:#FFFFFF; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-size:10pt; ">.</span> Because Respondent claims it did not create the hazard, it is incumbent upon Respondent to show LG created it by installing faulty hole covers.<span><span></span>
					</span></p>
			</div></div></body>
</html>