<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
		<title>Final Decision 19-1738 George Weis Company</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; widows:0; orphans:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; font-family:Times New Roman; color:WindowText; font-size:10pt; } 
 p { font-family:Times New Roman; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt; }  p.style_Normal { widows:0; orphans:0; } 
.style_Normal span { } 
 span.style_DefaultParagraphFont { } 
 table.style_TableNormal { } 
 table.style_TableGrid { } 
 p.style_BalloonText { font-size:8pt; font-family:Tahoma; } 
.style_BalloonText span { font-family:Tahoma; } 
 p.style_FootnoteText { } 
.style_FootnoteText span { } 
 span.style_FootnoteReference { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
.style_FootnoteReference span { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
 p.style_Footer { } 
 span.style_PageNumber { } 
 p.style_Header { } 
 span.style_FootnoteTextChar { } 
 span.style_Emphasis { font-style:italic; } 
.style_Emphasis span { font-style:italic; } 
 span.style_FooterChar { } 
.style_FooterChar span { } 
 span.style_LineNumber { } 
 span.style_CommentReference { font-size:8pt; } 
.style_CommentReference span { } 
 p.style_CommentText { } 
.style_CommentText span { } 
 span.style_CommentTextChar { } 
 p.style_CommentSubject { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_CommentSubject span { font-weight:bold; } 
 span.style_CommentSubjectChar { font-weight:bold; } 
.style_CommentSubjectChar span { font-weight:bold; } 
 p.style_Revision { } 
.style_Revision span { } 
 span.style_Hyperlink { color:#0000FF; text-decoration:underline ;} 
.style_Hyperlink span { color:#0000FF; text-decoration:underline ;} 
 p.style_ListParagraph { margin-left:48px; } 
 span.style_cosearchterm { } 
 span.style_IntenseEmphasis { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#4F81BD; } 
.style_IntenseEmphasis span { font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#4F81BD; } 
 span.style_PlaceholderText { color:#808080; } 
.style_PlaceholderText span { color:#808080; } 
 p.style_EndnoteText { } 
.style_EndnoteText span { } 
 span.style_EndnoteTextChar { } 
 span.style_EndnoteReference { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
.style_EndnoteReference span { position:relative;font-size:0.58em; bottom: 1ex;} 
 span.style_UnresolvedMention { color:#605E5C; background-color:#E1DFDD; } 
.style_UnresolvedMention span { color:#605E5C; background-color:#E1DFDD; } 
 span.X3AS7TOCHyperlink { color:#000000; text-decoration:none; } 
 p.X3AS7TABSTYLE { } 
 span.BulletSymbol { font-family:'Symbol'; } 
 body { margin-left:96px;margin-top:96px;margin-bottom:96px;margin-right:96px;} 
div.basic { width:16.51cm;height:22.86cm;} 
 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: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-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">United States of America</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; 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:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; border-top:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "> </p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">SECRETARY OF LABOR</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
									</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:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainan</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">t,</span></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:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> v. </span></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:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">GEORGE WEIS COMPANY</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
									</span>and its successors,</span></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:; border-right:dashed .018cm #000000; border-bottom:solid .018cm #000000; width:8.446cm;">
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span></p>
						</div>
						<div>
							<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
								</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent.</span></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; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">OSHRC Docket No</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">19-1738</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</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; "><span style="font-family:Times New Roman; "><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; ">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; ">Dana Hague</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, Esq.</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">, Department of Labor, Office of Solicitor,</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Kansas City, Missouri</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">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; ">Frank Simek, Safety Director</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">George Weis Company, Millstadt, Illinois</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">F</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">or Respondent</span><span style="font-size:11pt; 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; "><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Be</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">fore: </span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Judge<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Christopher<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">D.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; ">Helms<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>–</span><span style="font-size:11pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:11pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>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-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; 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="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Two of Respondent’s employees were installing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">soffits</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>on the sundeck of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Holiday Inn</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>hotel</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in Creve Coeur, Missouri. The foreman<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was in</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the basket of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">an</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>aerial lift</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and his<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">co-worker</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was handing the materials and tools over the edge of the sundeck onto the aerial lift. After<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a couple of hours, the employee on the sundeck</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>grabbed the mid-rail of the guardrail system protecting the edge of the sundeck and fell through both the top- and mid-rail</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>onto<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>aerial lift stationed just below the edge of the sundeck.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> As a result of its investigation,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">OSHA</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>determined Respondent failed to ensure the guardrail<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">could withstand</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>200 pounds of force</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.502(b)(3).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Complainant contends the proof of this violation is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">fairly simple</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">: a 200-pound man placed his weight on the mid-rail of a wire-rope guardrail system, which collapsed and caused the man to tumble over the edge. Complainant asserts these facts, coupled with its claim that Respondent was obligated to ensure the guardrail met the capacity requirement through a proper inspection, were sufficient to establish its<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">case. Respondent, on the other hand, contends</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the Citation and Notification of Penalty should be vacated beca</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">u</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">se</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">: (1)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Complainant fai</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">led to cite the proper standard, (2) the employee likely applied more than 200 pounds of force to the mid-rail, and (3) its employees performed adequate testing of the guardrail before work began. While the Court agrees with the result urged by Respondent,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>it does so for slightly different reasons. As discussed further below, the Court finds Complainant failed to produce competent proof the terms of the standard were violated.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As such, the Citation and its associated penalty will be vacated.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</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-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">I.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">P</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">ROCEDURAL HISTORY</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">As noted above, this case commenced with one of Respondent’s employees falling off the edge of a sundeck at a hotel under construction. Complainant was notified of the accident and sent Compliance Safety and Health Officer<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(“CSHO”)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Robert</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Robles to conduct an inspection approximately<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ten</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>days later. While at the worksite, CSHO Robles interviewed representatives of the general contractor</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and Respondent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. CSHO Robles also interviewed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the injured employee</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, who was</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>still</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rehabilitation at the hospital</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">as a result of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the injuries he suffered.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Based on his inspection, CSHO Robles recommended, and Complainant issued, a two-item Citation and Notification of Penalty</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent timely filed its Notice of Contest</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Upon filing the Complaint, Complainant stated, “Complainant hereby amends the Citation to delete Citation 1, Item 1 in its entirety. Citation 1, Item 2 remains as originally issued.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complaint at 2. Thus,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the only remaining item before the Court is a one-item, serious<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">itation, in which Complainant alleges a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1926.502(b)(3) and proposes a penalty of $6,630.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>A trial was held on October 29, 2020 via WebEx. The following individuals testified: (1)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, an employee of Respondent; (2) CSHO Robert Robles; (3) William McDonald, area director for the St. Louis OSHA Area Office; (4) Barry Schuhardt, crew foreman for Respondent; and (5) Frank Simek, Respondent’s Safety Director and Project Manager. After the trial concluded, both parties timely</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>filed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>post-trial briefs, which were considered by the Court in reaching its decision.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</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-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">II.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">S</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">TIPULATIONS<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">AND<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">JURISDICTION</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The parties stipulated to numerous matters, including the jurisdiction of this Court over both the proceedings and the parties before it.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Joint Stipulation Statement at ¶¶ 1, 2.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The parties submitted the Joint Stipulation Statement to the Court prior to the trial in this matter and read the stipulations into the record. (Tr. 10-13). Rather than reproduce<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">all<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">27 individual stipulations, the Court shall incorporate by reference the Joint Stipulations filed on October 15, 2020.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></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-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">III.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">F</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">ACTUAL BACKGROUND</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Respondent is a family-owned company that specializes in drywall, ceilings, and plaster. On</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>August 5, 2019,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the date of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">incident leading to this case</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, Respondent had a two-person crew</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>installing soffits underneath a sun deck. (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Stip. No. 9</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). The sun deck was part of a larger hotel construction project in Creve Coeur, Missouri, which was overseen by C. Rallo Contracting Co</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">mpany</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Inc.,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the general contractor. (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Stip. Nos. 5, 6</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent worked as a subcontractor<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">on the project</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>for over two years by the time</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>this incident occurred.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Stip. No. 7).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent’s crew included Barry Schuhardt, the foreman, and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, his subordinate. (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Stip. No. 8</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Schuhardt installed the soffits from the bucket of an aerial lift, which was located just below the sun deck. (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Stip. Nos. 9, 13</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>sat on his knees next to the edge of the sun deck, just inside the wire rope guardrails, and handed materials to Schuhardt. (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Stip. No. 14</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">At some point during this process,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>needed to get up. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified he grabbed the mid-rail and pushed down<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in order to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>support himself. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">36-37</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>While the rail felt solid when he first grabbed it,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>said the rail gave way as he placed his weight on it. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">38</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). As the rail gave way,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>fell<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">headfirst<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">through both the mid- and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">top-rail</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>onto Schuhardt’s aerial lift. (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Stip. Nos. 15, 16;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">37-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">38</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>suffered serious injuries, which</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, as of the date of the hearing,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>have prevented him from returning to work. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">25</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Subsequent inspection of the guardrails where<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>fell showed the c-clamps, which<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">allow</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the wire ropes to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">loop around the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">stanchions</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and clamp back on themselves</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, had not been adequately tightened. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">66</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-67</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 96</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">5</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">9</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">16</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). According to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">CSHO Robles</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, a contractor removed the guardrails from the sun deck<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in order to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>deliver materials</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and apparently failed to reset the c-clamps</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">properly</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">65-66</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Both<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified they visually and physically examined the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">top<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rail and determined it was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">safe</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">52-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">53,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">150-51</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">;<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">see also</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Ex. R-1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>stated<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he grabbed and shook the rail, and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">there were no visible sags in the cable.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">39, 53</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt testified he and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">walked the perimeter,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“grabbed the cables”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and “pull[ed] on them”. (Tr. 149</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 151).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Though,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt said he did not “remember messing with the mid-rail.” (Tr. 148).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Their testimony</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>contrasts with the statements they purportedly gave to CSHO Robles, who testified neither<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>nor<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>said they had performed a physical examination of the guardrail. (Tr. 85). According to Robles, he asked how Schuhardt performed his inspection, and Schuhardt said he had visually inspected the guardrail</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">; however,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>did not inform<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">him<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">of any<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">physical testing performed on it. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(Tr. 85</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-86</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). CSHO Robles also testified there was no evidence the railing had been reinspected<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the General Contractor, C. Rallo Contracting Company, Inc.,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">since it had been removed to accommodate a delivery of materials. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">73</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Moreover, documentary evidence demonstrates Respondent did not reinspect the guardrails once they were reinstalled, as Schuhardt was ultimately disciplined for failing to perform a proper inspection. (Ex. C-14).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>In response to the accident, OSHA initiated an inspection, which took place ten days after<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>fell through the guardrail. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">61</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-62</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">During</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>his inspection, CSHO Robles interviewed Frank<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Simek</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, who was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rehabbing from his injuries</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Due to the amount of time that had passed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>since the incident</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, CSHO Robles was not able to observe the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">guardrail</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in the condition it was in at the time of the accident, though he was able to observe<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the sun deck</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and the rail at least as it appeared prior to the accident. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">62-63</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Based on his interviews and observations, CSHO Robles recommended, and Complainant issued,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the following</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Citation and Notification of Penalty,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">which alleges</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>violat</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>29 C.F.R. § 1926.502(b)(3)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>when it failed to ensure the guardrail<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">could withstand</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a force of at least 200 pounds.</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-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">IV.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; 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; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">To establish a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>violation of a specific standard promulgated under section 5(a)(2) of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">et seq</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (“</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Act</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the Secretary 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><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Ormet Corporation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 14 BNA OSHC 2134 (No. 85-0531, 1991).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.295cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Secretary</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>must establish his<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">prima facie</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>case by preponderance of the evidence.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Hartford Roofing Co</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">., 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="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“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="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">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 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="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Black’s Law Dictionary, “Preponderance of the Evidence” (10th ed. 2014).</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-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">V.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">ANALYSIS</span></p>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; margin-left:96px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">A.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
				</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Citation 1, Item 2</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Complainant alleged a serious violation of the Act in Citation<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Item 2 as follows:<span>
						</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; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">29 CFR<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">19</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">26.502(b)(3)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Guardrail systems were not capable of withstanding, without failure, a force of at least 200 pounds (890 N) applied within 2 inches (5.1 cm) of the top edge, in any outward or downward direction, at any point along the top edge:</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; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">JOB SITE: 1030 Woodcrest Terrace, Creve Coeur, MO, 63141, on or about 8/5/2019, the employer failed to ensure the guardrail systems were capable of withstanding, without failure, a force of at least 200 pounds (890 N) applied within 2 inches (5.1 cm) of the top edge, in any outward or downward direction, at any point along the top edge. The workers were exposed to a fall hazard</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-right:48px; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation and Notification of Penalty</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at 7</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">1.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">The Standard Applied</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">According to 29 C.F.R. § 1926.50</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">0</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(a), “</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">This subpart sets forth requirements and criteria for fall protection in construction workplaces covered under 29 CFR part 1926.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref2" href="#ftn2">1</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent was clearly engaged in construction work at the time of the accident and, based on the measurements taken by CSHO Robles, the sun deck was more than 6 feet above the ground. Thus, not only is<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent generally covered by the construction standards under part 1926, but it also had an obligation to protect its employees “</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">from falling by the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(b)(1). That obligation is, in turn, governed by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.502, which provides the criteria for fall protection systems.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See id.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.501(a)(1).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Because Respondent was obligated to have fall protection, it was likewise obligated to ensure its compliance with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>1926.502.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Respondent asserts<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.502(b)(3) is not the appropriate standard because<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>grabbed the mid</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rail to support himself, and the mid</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rail’s requirements are governed by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.502(b)(5). While this argument has appeal when viewed in isolation, it also disregards how<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>fell. When<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>fell, both the mid</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rail and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">top</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rail</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>collapsed. Though<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>could not testif</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">y</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>as to how, exactly, he fell, it stands to reason<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>fell into the top</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rail as he fell over the edge.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> Because both rails failed, the standards governing the requirements for each rail are at issue. Further, irrespective of which rail<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>grabbed, the minimum capacity requirements for either rail are applicable to a workplace and employer engaged in work requiring the use of fall protection, such as guardrails.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">
					</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Thus, the Court finds the standard applies.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">2.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Respondent Knew or Could Have Known of the Hazardous Condition </span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">To prove this element, Complainant must show Respondent knew or, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, could have known of the violation.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dun-Par Engineered Form Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 12 BNA OSHC 1962, 1965 (No. 82-928, 1986). 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><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Phoenix Roofing, Inc.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 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><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Dover Elevator Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC 1281, 1286 (No. 91-862, 1993). </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant contends it proved Respondent had constructive knowledge of the condition because the evidence shows Respondent failed to perform an adequate inspection of the guardrail prior to working adjacent to it. In support of its claim, Complainant introduced testimony from CSHO Robles, who interviewed<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>after the inspection. According to CSHO Robles, he asked<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>how they inspected the guardrail, to which they responded they had done a visual examination. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">85, 102</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">). Respondent argues it had no reason to know the guardrail was noncompliant because both<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>testified they performed visual and physical examinations on the guardrail, including grabbing, pushing, and pulling on the top rail.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Ultimately, the Court credits the testimony of CSHO Robles, as well as other documentary evidence, over the testimony of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and finds Respondent could have known of a violative condition with the exercise of reasonable diligence.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref3" href="#ftn3">2</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“[A]n employer has a general obligation to inspect its workplace for hazards.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Hamilton Fixture</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 16 BNA OSHC 1073, 1993 WL 127949 at *16 (No. 88-1720, 1993) (citing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Automatic Sprinkler Corp. of America</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 8 BNA OSHC 1384, 1387 (No. 76-5089, 1980)). The scope of that obligation “requires a<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">careful and critical examination<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and is not satisfied by a mere opportunity to view equipment.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Austin Comm. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 610 F.2d 200, 202 (5th Cir. 1979)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(emphasis added)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. 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<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">be exposed, and to take measures to prevent the occurrence.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Frank Swidzinski Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 9 BNA OSHC 1230, 1233 (No. 76-4627, 1981</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In order to</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>decide whether Respondent complied with its obligation to perform a reasonably diligent examination of its workplace, the Court must determine whose version of the facts is more credible. As noted above, CSHO Robles testified neither<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>nor<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>told him they performed anything more than a visual examination of the guardrail. At trial,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>however,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>stated they observed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>grabbed, pushed, pulled, and shook the guardrail to ensure its stability. The Court finds the testimony of CSHO Robles more credible. In addition to having taken contemporaneous notes of his conversations with<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, CSHO Robles also acquired a disciplinary notice Respondent issued to Schuhardt for his “failure to check the one guardrail that was not installed properly (by others) and capable of withstanding required force.” (</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Tr.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">85</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Ex.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">C-14). Although Respondent attempted to disclaim the validity of the disciplinary notice by arguing it was issued in haste and without all necessary facts, the Court finds this line of argument unconvincing. Determining whether<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>or<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>conducted an adequate inspection of the guardrail is not a complicated investigation into the root cause of the accident, nor is the Court convinced that a decision rendered within a month or two after the fact is tainted by haste. (Tr. 166-67).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>It should also be noted Schuhardt admitted in court he did not perform a thorough inspection of the entire guardrail system, when he testified, “I don’t remember messing with the midrail.” (Tr. 148). This, in addition to the foregoing, cuts against Respondent’s claim that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>performed the type of examination they claimed to have performed.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Even with that resolved, the Court must nevertheless ascertain what a reasonable inspection looked like under the circumstances. The standard, as noted above, is whether Respondent could have known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, of the violative<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">condition. The Court finds the nature and location of the work warranted a more searching examination than<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">even<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">what<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>claim to have</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>performed.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Austin Comm. v. OSHRC</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 610 F.2d at 202 (reasonable diligence requires a “careful and critical examination”);<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Frank Swidzinski Co.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 9 BNA OSHC at 1233 (factors include obligation to inspect, anticipating hazards, and preventative measures taken).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was working adjacent to the edge of the sundeck, which was 26 feet above the ground, and handing material over the edge to Schuhardt, who was working from an aerial lift.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was not only exposed to the hazard, but he did not utilize any additional form of fall protection, which means he relied</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>solely<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">on the guardrail to protect him from falling. Due to the location of the work, the potential gravity of injury, and the lack of any additional form of fall protection, Respondent had an obligation to ensure the guardrail would perform as required under § 1926.502(b), including whether it would support the minimum level of required force.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Even if the Court were to accept the testimony of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>that they performed a physical manipulation of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">top rail</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to ensure its stability, the Court would nonetheless find the inspection was inadequate.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">There was simply no way for<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>or<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Schuhardt</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to ascertain whether the cable met the minimum force requirements by tugging and pulling on the wire rope guardrail, because there is no way to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">know</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>whether the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">force</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>they were applying<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was equivalent to 200 pounds.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Regardless of whether Respondent had the appropriate tools to perform such an examination, the obligation<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">existed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>nevertheless. As such, it was incumbent on Respondent to either get tools to perform a proper inspection or inquire with the contractor responsible for the guardrail’s construction to ensure compliance with the standard.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; page-break-before:page; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Complainant proved Respondent could have known of the existence of the hazard had it exercised reasonable diligence.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.635cm; line-height:2; text-align:justify; margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; line-height:2; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">3.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; 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; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>This element is not in dispute</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, nor could it be.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was working next to the guardrail for a period of approximately two hours on the morning of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the accident</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. (Tr.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">134</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>ultimately grabbed the guardrail to support himself as he stood up</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and fell over the edge.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See S</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "> </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">&</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "> </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">G Packaging Co., L.L.C.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 19 BNA OSHC 1503<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(No. 98-1107, 2001)<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(holding injuries establish actual exposure to the hazard).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Accordingly, the Court finds<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was exposed to the hazard.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_ListParagraph style_ListParagraph " style="margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.635cm; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; margin-left:144px; text-indent:-.635cm; widows:2; orphans:2; margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:16px; text-align:justify; ">
				<span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">4.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Complainant Failed to Show 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; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">More often than not</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, proof of whether the terms of the standard were violated is a perfunctory exercise</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. In this matter, however, it is the crux of the case. Complainant asks the Court to hold Respondent liable for violating 29 C.F.R. § 1926.502(b)(3) because</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">: (1)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent failed to perform an adequate inspection of the guardrail</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, and (2) the guardrail collapsed. Respondent, on the other hand, argues</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Complainant failed to prove how much force<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>applied to the guardrail when he stood up and fell, which means Complainant cannot credibly assert the terms of the standard were violated.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref4" href="#ftn4">3</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Resp’t Br.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at 7-8.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>As noted earlier, the Court agrees with Respondent.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Ultimately, the question being asked is whether Respondent can be held liable for violating the standard without concrete evidence showing the terms of the standard were not met. Here is what<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">proffered<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">evidence shows</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">: the guardrail collapsed when<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>grabbed the mid</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rail and fell through the top</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rail</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>weighed approximately 200 pounds</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref5" href="#ftn5">4</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at the time of the accident</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the guardrail was recently reinstalled</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>performed an inadequate<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">inspection of the guardrail<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in light of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the work it was performing. There is no evidence of the following: (1) the capacity of the guardrail at full strength, (2) the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">force imparted by a 200</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">- to 210</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-pound man as he pushes down on the rail to stand up</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, and (3) the force</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>imparted by</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a 200-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to 210-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">pound man falling over into an adjacent rail. Based on the evidence, Complainant seeks to hold Respondent liable for the violation<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">because</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the fall itself was sufficient to establish a violation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>because</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Respondent failed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to perform an inspection capable of revealing<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">whether</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the guardrail<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">could</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>withstand the minimum amount of force required by the standard.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The Court shall address each argument in turn.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">T</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he fact that the guardrail collapsed is certainly some evidence of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">a</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>violation, but it is not necessarily evidence of this violation</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, nor is it a sufficient basis to reach that conclusion</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Even if we add to that evidence the fact that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>weighs 200<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">to 210<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">pounds and used the guardrail in an expected manner</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, we still do not know how much force was applied because weight and force are not equivalent measures</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See, e.g.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Gutknecht Constr.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1996 WL 460161</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at *4</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>(No. 95-0956, 1996)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Attempting</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to show such evidence is sufficient to establish a violation, Complainant cites to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Gutknecht Construction<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Bianchi Trison Corp.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Neither case, however, stands for the proposition urged by Complainant.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; page-break-before:page; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Gutknecht Construction</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the employer was cited for a violation of 29 C.F.R. §</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.50</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1(b)(1).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">During the course of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the workday prior to the accident, a supervisor identified an open elevator shaft.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at *2</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. His subordinate placed a four-foot by eight-foot sheet of particle board over the opening and promised to guard it<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">properly<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the next morning but never did.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> The following day, another employee dismantling scaffold dropped a piece of scaffolding, which fell towards the employee who set up the particle board.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> As the scaffold fell, the employee below ran towards the elevator shaft and crashed through the particle board and<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">fell<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">down the elevator<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">shaft to the ground 40 feet below.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Presented with these facts, the ALJ determined the employer violated 1926.501(b)(1).</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Gutknecht</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">t</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">he Secretary argued<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the guardrail</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>could not be an adequate guardrail system because it failed in its primary purpose: to “prevent employees from falling to lower levels.”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See id.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(citing 29 C.F.R. § 1926.500(b). Thus, Complainant argued Respondent had violated 1926.501(b)(1). The ALJ thought Complainant’s interpretation was too restrictive as a general proposition but determined it was appropriate in the context of the case before him: “</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">However, in this instance, the fact that the worker’s impact on the particleboard broke it argues strongly in support of the Secretary’s position. Clearly, the standard is intended to preclude this sort of event. The failure of the particleboard “guardrail” constitutes evidence that it did not comply with §</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.502(b)(3).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>at<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">*3</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Ultimately, the ALJ concluded the failure of the particle board to comply with the criteria under 1926.502(b)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and the fact that it failed to protect an individual from the specific hazard it was intended to prevent</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was sufficient to establish<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">a violation of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.501(b)(1).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">There are<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">four</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>reasons why the Court is unconvinced by the foregoing. First, it is not a precedential decision of the Commission. This Court may use the decisions of other ALJs as persuasive precedent, but it is not bound to follow those decisions.</span><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><a name="ftnref6" href="#ftn6">5</a></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Second,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the ALJ was not attempting to answer whether<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.502(b)(3) was violated but was instead focused on the principal fall protection standard,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.501(b)(1). In that respect,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">any and all</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>failures under<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.502(b), which contain the criteria for installing an adequate guardrail, would be sufficient to establish a violation under<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.501(b)(1).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Gutknecht<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">decision states</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the failure of the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">particle board guardrail “constitutes evidence [employer] did not comply with § 1926.502(b)(3)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">This conclusion<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">seems to conflate the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">evidence necessary to show whether</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a guardrail<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">designed to prevent employees from falling to lower levels with the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">evidence required to illustrate compliance with the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">specific requirements<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">(b)(3).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Further, while</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>someone falling through the railing was “some evidence” of a violation,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the presence of</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">“</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">some evidence</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>does not mean<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">it</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>is sufficient to<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">prove noncompliance with a specific set of requirements</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Third, the Court is concerned about how the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Gutknecht</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">decision<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">allocates the respective burdens of proof with respect to whether the guardrail was compliant. The employer pointed out the Secretary failed to perform any tests illustrating the particle board was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">in</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">sufficient to meet the terms of § 1926.502(b)(3) and performed tests of its own—using a 200-pound employee—to illustrate the board was</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, in fact,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>sufficient. The ALJ determined the employer performed unscientific tests that equated weight with force and “did not constitute credible evidence of compliance with § 1926.502(b)(3).”<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Gutknecht</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1996 WL 460161 at *4</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">While this Court<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">more or less agrees</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>with that conclusion, the manner in which it is stated<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">implies</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a higher burden on the employer to prove compliance with §</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.502(b)(3) than<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">what was</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>required of the Secretary in its attempt to establish noncompliance.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>While this Court agrees the evidence presented by the employer</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Gutknecht</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was not<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">sufficient or persuasive</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to establish compliance</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>with § 1926.502(b)(3), the Court finds it was no<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">less<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">persuasive or competent than the evidence introduced by the Secretary.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Finally,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">this Court is not confronted with</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a slapdash, band-aid fix<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">like</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a piece of particle board resting over an opening to an elevator shaft, which violates any number of the criteria for guardrails under<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">§<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.502(b)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>but</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>is instead concerned with the quality of the evidence used to support finding a violation of a specific, individual requirement</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="page-break-before:page; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "></span> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">In<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Bianchi-Trison Corp.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, also an ALJ decision, the court was presented with mounds of evidence the guardrails in question were not sufficient to withstand even hand-pressure.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Bianchi-Trison Corp.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 20 BNA OSHC 1801 (No. 01-1367 et al., 2004) (ALJ)</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">aff’d on other grounds</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 409 F.3d 196</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. The various guardrails were (1) made of split wood and nails, not secured to the floor, and could be moved a foot in either direction<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">by hand; (2) made of caution tape wrapped around rebar and concrete blocks; and (3) garbage cans with sticks and caution tape. In each case, the ‘guardrail’ used was patently insufficient to support weight of any kind, considering it was either made from caution tape or could be moved with little to no force exerted on it.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Id.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> While no evidence was presented on the specific capacity of the individual guardrails, there was ample evidence to support a reasonable inference the guardrails in question fell woefully short of the requirement imposed by § 1926.502(b)(3).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">A</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s regards the inspection</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, which the Court addressed earlier, the question about whether Respondent should have known about a hazardous condition is uncomplicated. Respondent’s crew was working adjacent to a fall hazard 26 feet above the ground. Although there was existing protection, it was incumbent upon Respondent to ensure it was adequate.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The question Complainant’s argument invites<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">is</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>whether Respondent’s failure to perform an adequate inspection is evidence that supports a finding the guardrail did not comply with § 1926.502(b)(3).</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; text-indent:1.27cm; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">If the behavior targeted by Complainant is Respondent’s failure to conduct an adequate inspection of the guardrail, then the standard cited is not the route to hold Respondent liable. Although Respondent’s failure to conduct an adequate inspection<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">suffices to prove knowledge</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">it is not persuasive evidence Respondent failed to comply with the standard. If Complainant’s position is taken to its logical conclusion, Complainant could<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">presumably</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>cite any of the §</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">1926.502(b) requirements if an employer failed to perform a proper inspection</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The Court, of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">course, understand</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">s</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>piece of evidence is not monolithic and can be used in support of multiple propositions either individually or in combination with other evidence</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">However, in this case, w</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hether Respondent performed an</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>adequate</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>inspection<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">only</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>addresses whether Respondent<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">could have<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">kn</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">own whether the violative condition existed not whether the condition, in fact, existed. Irrespective of whether Respondent knew</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>or should have known</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>it, the guardrail either was or was not capable of withstanding the force of 200 pounds applied within two inches.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>The failure to perform an adequate inspection does not make that<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">more or less true</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</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 style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">While this is clearly the type of accident the standard is designed to prevent,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the Court refuses the invitation to conclude the guardrail was noncompliant simply because it<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">collapsed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>and Respondent failed to be reasonably diligent in its inspection. The requirements of the standard are simple and the path to proving a violation of that standard is equally so.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant failed to provide the Court with competent evidence that, at the time of the accident, the guardrail was incapable of withstanding the level of force specified in 1926.502(b)(3) or that the force<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>applied to the rail<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">was incapable of superseding</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the minimum capacity.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Instead, Complainant asks the Court to premise its conclusion on a large stack of inferences and non-precedential case law that does not support the proposition for which Complainant cites it. Absent evidence regarding the capacity of the railing or the force applied by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, the Court finds Complainant failed to meet its burden to prove the terms of the cited standard were violated.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </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-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-weight:bold; padding-right:20px;">VI.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; ">Conclusion</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">This case highlights</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the importance of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Complainant’s burden of proof and the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>distinction between Complainant failing to prove a violation and whether a violation, in fact, existed. The Court was<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">not presented with</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>adequate evidence to find the terms of the standard were violated. Indeed, it seemed even Complainant recognized its folly when it attempted to “prove” the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">terms<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">of the standard were violated</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">relying on comments in the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Federal Register</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>describing</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>200 pounds of force<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">as</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>“enormous”</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to illustrate why<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>did not impose that amount of force on the rail.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">See Compl’t Br.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">at 17 (citing Safety Standards for Fall Protection in the Construction Industry, 59 Fed. Reg. 40672, 40698 (August 9, 1994))</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Without some illustration of what “enormous” means, the Court cannot simply infer<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">’s actions failed to qualify. Instead, Complainant could have</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>simply show</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ed</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the amount of force applied to the mid</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">-</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">rail by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>in the act of standing up (or</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, in the case of the top-rail,</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the amount of force applied to it from him<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">falling into</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>it</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">) would not have exceeded the minimum force requirement of the standard.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Further, w</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">hile<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Respondent may not have performed an adequate inspection of the guardrail, this evidence merely shows Respondent could have known of the hazardous condition. Proof of Respondent’s ability to know of a hazardous condition, however, should not be equated with proof the rail was not compliant with (b)(3).<span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Ultimately, the proof required to establish a violation is commensurate with the level of specificity inherent to the standard. In this case, the cited standard indicates a guardrail must be capable of supporting a minimum level of force, which is 200</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>pounds</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Nobody testified, nor was anyone capable of testifying, the<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">amount of force applied by<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was sufficient to overcome a compliant guardrail</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">. Considering what happened when<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>leaned on the mid-rail, it is probable the rail was incapable of meeting the minimum capacity requirements. But,<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">not knowing whether the guardrail was compliant and having an accident occur, are not sufficient bases upon which to conclude the specific terms of the standard were violated.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Unlike the other cases cited by Complainant, there were no objective and patently obvious reasons to indicate this guardrail was incapable of supporting the requisite<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">force</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Either the guardrail<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">could hold</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>the required force, or it<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">could</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>not. Proof of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">its inability to do so did not require observing the accident itself, but merely<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">testimony or documentary evidence indicating a man of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">[redacted]</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">’s height and weight, performing the activities engaged in at the time of the accident, would not impose more than 200 pounds of force. Such evidence<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">would have provided</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>a rational basis</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>upon which</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to conclude<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">the</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>guardrail</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>was</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>incapable of supporting someone imposing less than 200 pounds of force<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">and, therefore, was</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>not compliant with 1926.502(b)(3).<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Court did not have that or any other evidence, as in the cases of<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Gutknecht</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>or<span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-style:italic; ">Bianchi-Trison</span><span style="font-size:12pt; color:#000000; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, to reach the conclusion urged by Complainant. </span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">The Court takes great pains to describe these facts</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>here and throughout this decision</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>to illustrate two points: (1) Complainant failed to make its case, and (2) Complainant’s failure to make its case does not mean Respondent acted properly under the circumstances. Respondent failed to take appropriate steps to ensure its employees were not exposed to hazardous conditions, including conducting a proper examination of fall protection equipment on a day where exposure to that hazard was imminent and persistent.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>Nevertheless, because Complainant failed to prove it, the Citation item is hereby VACATED.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:center; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;">O</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; 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="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">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. </span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclus</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">ions of Law, it is ORDERED that:</span></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="font-size:12pt; padding-right:20px;">1.</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Citation 1, Item<span>
					</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">2 is VACATED.</span></p>
			<div>
				<p style="line-height:2; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">SO</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span>ORDERED</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">.</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:18pt; font-family:Monotype Corsiva; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:18pt; text-decoration:underline ;">/s/ Christopher D. Helms</span><span style="font-size:18pt; font-family:Monotype Corsiva; text-decoration:underline ;font-family:Times New Roman; font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:18pt; text-decoration:underline ;"><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Christopher</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span><span></span>
						</span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">D. Helms</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span>Judge, OSHRC</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Date:</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "> March 1</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">6</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">, 2021</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p style="text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; "><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; ">Denver, Colorado</span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span><span style="font-size:12pt; font-family:Times New Roman; font-size:12pt; "><span style="mso-tab-count:1">  </span></span></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>
					<a name="ftn1" href="#ftnref1"></a> </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_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">1 </span></a>.<span>
					</span><span><span></span>
					</span>There is an exception to this rule for making inspections and assessments “prior to the actual start of construction work or after all construction work has been completed.” 29 C.F.R. § 1926.501(a)(1). Respondent has not argued the<span>
					</span>fall protection<span>
					</span>standard<span><span></span>
					</span>as a whole<span><span></span>
					</span>does not apply, nor do the facts of this case support application of the exception. Work had been ongoing at the hotel for a long time at this point, and there was no indication it had been completed.<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_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">2 </span></a>. The Court would like to make a quick note about its conclusion. Although the Court ultimately finds Complainant failed to prove a violation of the standard because it did not proffer competent evidence on the topic of whether the terms of the standard were violated, the Court nonetheless wishes to address the question of knowledge for<span>
					</span>a couple of<span><span></span>
					</span>reasons. First, while Respondent failed to perform an adequate inspection, such is not persuasive evidence the cited standard has been violated. Second, while the Court recognizes a violative condition is a prerequisite for finding Respondent should have been aware of it, the Court nonetheless wishes to illustrate that, but for Complainant’s failure of proof on that element, the remaining elements of the violation had been established. Thus, to the extent the Court finds Respondent could have been aware of the violative condition with the exercise of reasonable diligence, it is doing so with the caveat that Complainant ultimately failed to provide adequate evidence to support<span>
					</span>the existence of a violation.<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_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">3 </span></a>. The remainder of Respondent’s argument—that the amount of force<span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>exerted on the rail was in excess of the regulatory minimum—is not based on credible evidence, but conjecture.<span>
					</span></p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText " style="text-align:justify; "> </p>
			</div>
			<div>
				<p class="style_Normal style_Normal style_FootnoteText style_FootnoteText ">
					<a name="ftn5" href="#ftnref5"><span class="style_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">4 </span></a>.<span><span></span>
					</span>[redacted]<span><span></span>
					</span>testified that he weighed 200 to 210 pounds at the time of the incident. (Tr. 50).</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_FootnoteReference style_FootnoteReference " style="font-family:Times New Roman; ">5 </span></a>. This is particularly so in the case of the ALJ’s decision in<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">Gutknecht</span>, which was set aside by the Commission after the parties submitted a settlement agreement that disposed of the case.<span>
					</span><span style="font-style:italic; font-family:Times New Roman; font-style:italic; ">See Gutknecht</span>,<span>
					</span>1997 WL 411317<span><span></span>
					</span>(No. 95-0956).<span>
					</span></p>
			</div></div></body>
</html>