United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

 1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

 Washington, DC 20036-3457

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

OSHRC Docket No. 14-1806

LARRY MCMURRAN, dba LAR’S 

PLUMBING, INC., 

Respondent.

APPEARANCES: 

Suzanne F. Dunne, Attorney; Christine Z. Heri, Regional Solicitor; M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor; 

U.S. Department of Labor, Washington DC and Chicago, IL 

 For the Complainant 

Larry McMurran; Shannon Kent; Lar’s Plumbing, Inc., Park Ridge, IL 

 For the Respondent 

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND REMAND ORDER 

Before: ATTWOOD, Acting Chairman and MACDOUGALL, Commissioner. 

BY THE COMMISSION: 

On May 6, 2015, Administrative Law Judge John H. Schumacher issued a default 

judgment against Larry McMurran, dba Lar’s Plumbing, Inc., based on its failure to respond to a 

show cause order. For the reasons that follow, we direct this case for review, set aside the 

judge’s decision, and remand this case for further proceedings in a manner consistent with this 

opinion. 

BACKGROUND 

Following an inspection, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued 

Respondent a nine-item serious citation. Respondent, appearing pro se, timely filed a notice of 

contest (“NOC”). On December 9, 2014, the Secretary requested an extension of time to file his 

complaint to allow the parties additional time to explore settlement. On December 18, 2014, the 
2

Secretary’s counsel sent Respondent copies of a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, with 

instructions to sign, then return the agreement to the Solicitor of Labor’s Chicago office. 

According to the Secretary’s correspondence, the agreement reduced the citation’s total proposed 

penalty amount from $12,400 to $3,640. Upon receiving notification of the pending settlement, 

the judge issued an order on December 30, 2014, cancelling a previously scheduled 

teleconference and giving the parties until January 30, 2015, to file the signed agreement. 

On March 24, 2015, after the Secretary advised the judge that Respondent had not yet 

finalized the agreement and could not be reached by phone, the judge issued Respondent an 

Order to Show Cause for Failure to File Settlement Agreement requiring a response within ten 

days of the issuance of the order. In the show cause order, which was sent by certified mail with 

return receipt requested, the judge directed Respondent to explain its failure to: (1) “participate 

with the [Secretary’s counsel] in finalizing a previously-agreed to settlement agreement,” (2) 

respond to the Secretary’s counsel’s telephone messages, and (3) advise the judge of any changes 

to its business telephone number. See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.6 (requiring any change in contact 

information be communicated to the Commission); 29 C.F.R. § 2200.101(a) and 101(d) (setting 

forth default procedure for a party’s failure to proceed and requirement that show cause order be 

served by certified mail, return receipt requested). The judge received the signed return receipt 

for the show cause order on April 3, 2015, showing a March 30, 2015, delivery date and an 

illegible signature. 

On May 6, 2015, having received no response to the show cause order from the 

Respondent, the judge issued a decision vacating the NOC and affirming the citation together 

with the $12,400 total proposed penalty. The case was docketed with the Commission and on 

May 23, 2015, Shannon Kent, the daughter of Respondent’s owner, sent the Commission a letter 

along with copies of two cancelled checks made payable to and stamped received by OSHA. In 

the letter, which she addresses to the “OSHA Review Board,” Ms. Kent thanks the Commission 

for “taking a look at this [case] and . . . plea[ds] for you to mak[e] the amount owed back to 

$3640.00.” See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.91(b) (procedures for filing petition for discretionary review). 

DISCUSSION 

“Whether dismissal is appropriate in any situation depends on whether a party’s behavior 

demonstrates contumacy, whether the other party was prejudiced, and whether other aggravating 

circumstances were present.” Caterpillar, Inc., 17 BNA OSHC 1507, 1509, 1995-97 CCH 
3

OSHD ¶ 30,972, p. 43,156 (No. 94-347, 1996) (citations omitted). Here, the judge found that 

Respondent’s actions “demonstrate either that it has abandoned this case or that it treats the 

Commission’s Rules . . . with disdain.” In her letter to the Commission, however, Ms. Kent 

asserts that: (1) she “followed everything that [she] was instructed to do and sent all the required 

documents that OSHA requested”; (2) “we have been faithful in making payments totaling 

$2000.00 up to this point”; and (3) the owner of the company has specified medical conditions, 

which she suggests have impeded his ability to attend to administrative matters, such as those at 

issue here. 

Ms. Kent does not indicate to which OSHA office she sent “the required documents.” It 

is therefore possible that rather than sending them to the Solicitor of Labor’s Chicago office in 

accordance with the Secretary’s instructions, she may have erroneously sent them to the OSHA 

office in Des Plaines, Illinois, where she submitted the two checks. These checks reflect 

payments to OSHA of $1,000 each on January 13, 2015, and April 20, 2015, which suggests 

Respondent was complying with the terms of the pending settlement agreement and thus did not 

intend to abandon this case. Although Respondent failed to avail itself of the opportunity 

afforded by the show cause order to present this information to the judge prior to his default 

decision, we are mindful of Ms. Kent’s assertions regarding the owner’s medical conditions. In 

addition, we note that the Secretary has never claimed he was prejudiced by Respondent’s 

alleged failure to timely file the settlement documents or respond to the show cause order. 

Under these circumstances, of which the judge was not aware when he issued his 

decision, we conclude that a sanction of dismissal is not appropriate. See WR Exterior Design 

Construction, Inc., 22 BNA OSHC 1391, 1392, 2004-09 CCH OSHD ¶ 33,006, p. 54,232 (No. 

08-0474, 2008) (citing Samuel Filisko, 20 BNA OSHC 2204, 2206, 2005 CCH OSHD ¶ 32,855, 

p. 52,962-63 (No. 04-1465, 2005) (“[L]ate filing alone without evidence of prejudice, 

contumacious conduct and/or a pattern of disregard for Commission rules would not be a basis 

for dismissing this case.”)); see also Merchant’s Masonry Inc., 18 BNA OSHC 1936, 1937, 1999

CCH OSHD ¶ 31,931, p. 47,369 (No. 99-0189, 1999) (stating that the Commission has allowed 

remand where a small pro se employer makes some factual claims that might justify remand). 

Accordingly, we direct this case for review, set aside the judge’s decision, and remand 

this case to the judge for further proceedings. See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.90(b)(3) (relief from 

default); 29 C.F.R. § 2200.101(b) (motion to set aside sanctions). On remand, we instruct the 
4

judge to allow the parties an opportunity to present any relevant evidence regarding the claims in 

Ms. Kent’s May 23, 2015 letter to the Commission, including evidence that a signed copy of the 

settlement agreement was among those documents that Respondent asserts were signed and 

“sent.”1

SO ORDERED.

/s/ 

Cynthia L. Attwood 

Acting Chairman 

/s/ 

 Heather L. MacDougall

Dated: June 5, 2015 Commissioner 

 

1

 If the judge determines that the settlement documents were either not sent to the Secretary or 

are no longer in Respondent’s possession, he may choose to instruct the Secretary to provide 

another copy of the agreement to Respondent, and afford the parties an opportunity to finalize 

the agreement and submit it (along with any other required documents) to the judge for approval. 

The judge may also consider verifying with the Secretary that the two payments purportedly 

made by Respondent were received and accepted by OSHA and if so, reflect that fact in any 

order approving the settlement.
 United States of America 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

 721 19th Street, Room 407 

 Denver, Colorado 80202 

Phone: (303) 844-3409 Fax: (303) 844-3759

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

Complainant,

v.

LARRY MCMURRAN, dba LAR’S PLUMBING, 

INC.,

Respondent.

 OSHRC Docket No.: 14-1806

DECISION AND ORDER OF DEFAULT FOR FAILURE TO SHOW CAUSE 

On March 24, 2015, the undersigned issued an Order to Show Cause and ordered 

Respondent to show cause within 10 days of the date of the order, (1) why it had failed to participate 

with the Solicitor of Labor in finalizing a previously-agreed to settlement agreement in the abovestyled case; (2) why it failed to return multiple phone calls from Complainant’s representative, and (3) 

why it failed to keep the Court advised of any changes to its business telephone number. 

Respondent was advised that failure to comply with the Order to Show Cause would result in 

the dismissal of its Notice of Contest, the affirming of the citation, and the assessing of the proposed 

penalties without a hearing. The Order to Show Cause was sent by first class certified mail, return 

receipt requested. The return receipt card that accompanied the certified mail was returned to the 

Commission on April 3, 2015, with a signature and receipt date of March 30, 2015.

The record in this case reveals that Respondent has failed to reply to the Order to Show Cause. 

Respondent’s actions demonstrate either that it has abandoned this case or that it treats the 

Commission’s Rules of Procedure (“Rules”) with disdain. This cannot be countenanced, as it seriously 

impedes the administration of justice. 

Rule 101(a) of the Commission’s Rules, 29 C.F.R. 2200.101(a), provides in pertinent part as 

follows: 

Sanctions. When any party has failed to plead or otherwise proceed as provided by 

these rules or as required by the ... Judge, he may be declared to be in default ... on the 

initiative of the ... Judge, after having been afforded an opportunity to show cause why 
he should not be declared to be in default....Thereafter, the ... Judge, in [his or her] 

discretion, may enter a decision against the defaulting party. 

There is clear evidence in the record that Respondent has received a copy of the Order to Show 

Cause. A judge has very broad discretion in imposing sanctions for noncompliance with the 

Commission’s Rules or the judge’s orders. See Sealtite Corp., 15 BNA OSHC 1130, 1134 (No. 88-

1431, 1991). In view of the record before me, the undersigned finds that Respondent has been given 

proper notice of the administrative proceedings in this matter and that it had been advised of its 

opportunity to respond to the Order to Show Cause. 

ORDER

 Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that 

Respondent is declared in DEFAULT, its Notice of Contest is DISMISSED, and the citation items 

issued in this matter are AFFIRMED, and that all proposed penalties are hereby assessed. 

/s/ 

JOHN H. SCHUMACHER 

Judge, OSHRC 

Dated: May 6, 2015 

Denver, CO