UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

 

 

 

 DOCKET NO. 16-0367 

 

 

Appearances:

Christopher D. Lopez-Loftis, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Dallas, Texas

 For Complainant

Steven R. McCown, Esq., Earl M. Jones, III, Esq., Sean M. McRory, Esq., Littler Mendelson, PC 

 For Respondent

Before: Administrative Law Judge Brian A. Duncan

DECISION AND ORDER

Procedural History

On July 23, 2015, Respondent’s mobile well-servicing rig tipped over while its 

employees were attempting to remove a piece of pipe that had become stuck in an oil well 

thousands of feet under ground. Two employees were seriously injured and another, who was 

positioned 60 feet up in the derrick, was killed. Complainant assigned Compliance Safety and 

Health Officer (“CSHO”) Wayne Eyerly and James Nelson, a technical analyst from the OSHA 

Salt Lake City Technical Center, to perform an inspection of the worksite. CSHO Eyerly and 

Mr. Nelson arrived at the worksite a week-and-a-half after the accident occurred. Based on

CSHO Eyerly’s and Mr. Nelson’s observations and recommendations, Complainant issued a 

Citation and Notification of Penalty, alleging that Respondent committed a serious violation of 

SECRETARY OF LABOR, 

 

 Complainant,

 

 v. 

BASIC ENERGY SERVICES, LP, 

 

 Respondent.
2

29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1), also referred to as the general duty clause, with a proposed penalty of 

$7,000. Respondent timely contested the Citation, which brought the matter before the

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission pursuant to Section 10(c) of the OSH Act. 

This case was originally set for trial on December 6, 2016; then continued, at the request 

of the parties, to March 9, 2017. On March 9, 2017, the trial began but was quickly recessed 

because two key witnesses, Johnny Mullins and Michael Brown, refused to comply with trial 

subpoenas issued by this Court.

1

 Both parties also raised multiple discovery issues and claims of 

prejudice for the first time at trial. (Tr. 78-106). 

On March 29, 2017, Complainant filed a motion to enforce the subpoenas. Therefore, the 

matter was referred to the Department of Justice, who has authority to pursue the enforcement of 

OSHRC subpoenas before the appropriate U.S. District Court. See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.65(f). It 

took nearly 10 months for the DOJ to authorize the enforcement action and refer the matter to a 

local U.S. Attorney’s Office. On February 27, 2018, the U.S. Attorney filed a petition to enforce 

the administrative subpoenas served on Mullins and Brown in the Eastern District of Texas. This 

Court further issued an order compelling Mullins and Brown to testify at a commencement of 

this trial on March 1, 2018. 

When the trial was reconvened on March 1, 2018, however, Mullins and Brown again 

failed to appear. In lieu of waiting for Mullins and Brown, the Court heard testimony from the 

only other witness called by the parties: James Nelson. (Tr. 140). By the conclusion of Nelson’s 

testimony, neither Mullins nor Brown had appeared. Therefore, the Court ordered the trial be 

recessed again while the subpoena enforcement action progressed before the District Judge in the 

Eastern District of Texas. (Tr. 282-294). 

1 Served by Complainant on February 28, 2017 and March 2, 2017.
3

On April 17, 2018, Respondent filed a Petition for Interlocutory Review based on the 

repeated trial delays and a claim of prejudice resulting from those delays. The matter was not 

accepted by the Commission for review, resulting in a de facto denial of the petition on May 18, 

2018. See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.73(b). 

On December 3, 2018, the Eastern District of Texas District Court issued an Order to 

Show Cause to Mullins and Brown regarding their failure to appear at the OSHRC trial. 

Ultimately, on April 8, 2019, Brown and Mullins withdrew their previously lodged objections to 

the OSHRC subpoenas. Therefore, on April 10, 2019, the District Court issued an order 

directing Mullins and Brown to appear before this Court “at such reasonable time and place as 

the ALJ may set, and then and there testify.” 

On June 7, 2019, the conclusion of this trial was conducted in Tyler, Texas, wherein both 

Mullins and Brown appeared and gave testimony. No additional witnesses were called by either 

party. Both parties timely submitted post-trial briefs for consideration. 

Jurisdiction & Stipulations

The parties stipulated that the Commission has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant 

to Section 10(c) of the Act and that, at all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was an 

employer engaged in a business and industry affecting interstate commerce within the meaning 

of Sections 3(3) and 3(5) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 652(5). (Tr. 15). See Slingluff v. OSHRC, 425

F.3d 861 (10th Cir. 2005). 

Factual Background 

 Respondent was hired by Mid-States Petroleum to remove a section of oil pipe that had 

become stuck roughly 7,500 feet below the wellhead. (Tr. 353, 384, 450). Respondent worked 

with a tool hand named George Ogle, who was employed by Knight Tools, which provides 
4

specialty tools to aid in the removal of stuck pipe. (Tr. 365–66). The operation was overseen by 

a company man, Stewart Luce, who represented Mid-States at the wellsite. (Tr. 366, 421). 

Respondent’s on-site crew consisted of Michael Brown (Rig Supervisor/Tool Pusher), Johnny 

Mullins (Rig Operator), Justin Turner (derrick hand), and two other derrick hands. (Tr. 337, 421, 

450). 

The process of removing a piece of stuck oil pipe down the well is commonly referred to 

as “fishing,” and the piece of stuck pipe is referred to as the “fish”. (Tr. 317–19). Respondent 

provided what is known as a mobile workover rig, which was used as the fishing pole, so to 

speak, to reel in the fish.

2 (Tr. 323). The rig being used at this site, a series 750, had a hydraulic 

actuated mast,

3 which extended 120 feet up in the air from the rear of the mobile unit, and had a 

300,000-pound lifting capacity. (Tr. 149, 326–28). Once the rig was positioned over the 

wellhead, it was anchored to a base beam, which is a solid piece of steel, measuring roughly 85 

feet long, 4 feet wide, and at least 6–12 inches thick. (Tr. 328–30). The derrick had three main

employee work areas: the “goat stand,” where the rig operator, Mullins, was positioned; the rig 

floor, where the two derrick hands worked; and the elevated tubing board, where derrick hand 

Justin Turner, was stationed. (Tr. 337–38, 344, 354). The rig operator raised and lowered the

pipe string by controlling elevators attached to the mast. (Tr. 319–20, 344). The rig floor hands 

used a set of tongs to separate sections of pipe, known as “stands”,4 as they came out of the 

wellhead. (Tr. 344). The derrick hand who was positioned on the tubing board, roughly 60 feet 

2. According to Mullins, a servicing rig serves two functions: completion and workover operations. (Tr. 319). This 

case focuses on workover operations, which are implemented when something goes wrong at the well, such as a 

stuck piece of pipe. (Tr. 319).

3. The mast is also referred to as the derrick. (Tr. 322). 

4. An individual section of pipe is referred to as a “joint”, whereas two pieces of pipe attached by a collar are 

referred to as a “stand”. (Tr. 342). A joint is typically 31.5- to 32.5-feet long. (Tr. 431). Thus, a stand is roughly 65-

feet long, which explains the position of a derrick hand in a 60-foot tall perch. (Tr. 431)
5

above the rig floor, took the individual pipes that had been lifted out of the wellhead and placed

them in a rack stand. (Tr. 191–93, 344, 357; Ex. C-4 at 7, 12). 

Brown’s crew arrived at the wellsite at 3:00 p.m. on July 22, 2015, the day before the rig 

collapse. (Tr. 347). They set up the mobile servicing unit and the night crew started putting pipe 

into the hole until 7:00 a.m. the next morning, at which point Brown’s crew took over after 

conducting its safety meeting, filling out a job safety analysis, and attaching a new weight 

indicator. (Tr. 345, 348–49). After 3–4 hours of running pipe down the hole, Brown’s crew had 

reached the stuck section of pipe (aka “fish”) (Tr. 350). As part of the fishing operation, the 

night crew, with the assistance of Ogle, had attached a piece of equipment to the bottom hole 

assembly (BHA) known as an overshot.5 (Tr. 317, 339, 349, 413). The overshot was designed to

latch onto the fish, so it could be freed and pulled upward to the ground surface. (Tr. 319). At 

this point in the process, there was 7,500 feet, or approximately 96,000 pounds, of pipe 

(including the BHA) down the well, which Mullins referred to as the “work string” or “pipe 

string.” (Tr. 340, 353). 

Once Mullins latched onto the fish, he loaded the “jars”, which were compressed 

hydraulic rims inside of a cylinder on the BHA that apply an impact, or jolt, to the stuck fish.6

(Tr. 351–52). Mullins increased the upward pull weight on the pipe string to 120,000 pounds, 

which caused the jars to be set off. (Tr. 351). At that point, the fish remained stuck in place, so 

Mullins reloaded the jars and increased the string pull weight to 170,000 pounds. (Tr. 351–52). 

According to Mullins, when the jars were released again at 170,000 pounds, the stuck section of 

pipe/fish came loose. (Tr. 351–52). None of Respondent’s employees were working on the rig

5. The BHA is the first thing sent down the well. (Tr. 414). 

6. According to Mullins, this “jolt” shakes the entire servicing rig, not merely the portion of the pipe below the 

surface. (Tr. 363–64). 
6

floor or on the elevated tube board during this first release of stuck pipe. (Tr. 354). After they 

“caught the fish”, the three derrick hands climbed up on the rig to various positions to begin 

pulling out the work string and busted pipe. (Tr. 353–54). 

According to Mullins, the subsequent pipe removal was a slow process because there was 

a bend towards the bottom of the well hole where the pipe turned laterally for 3,000 to 4,000 

feet. (Tr. 355). Mullins testified it took nearly an hour-and-a-half to remove 15 to 16 stands of 

pipe from the well, because they had to occasionally move the string up and down in order to 

move the stands past the bend.7 (Tr. 355, 359). The extracted stands were placed in the rack by 

Turner, who was aloft in the mast. (Tr. 357). During this part of the process, the weight indicator 

showed the rig pulling with roughly 85,000 to 100,000 pounds of force, which accounted for the 

approximate 96,000 pound string weight, and the additional force needed to get the stands past 

the bend in the hole. (Tr. 359, 425). Mullins testified it was not unusual to have fluctuations of a 

few thousand pounds above the string weight. (Tr. 388). Rig Supervisor Brown was in his truck 

during the initial removal of pipe sections. (Tr. 361). 

Once Respondent’s crew had removed 15 to 16 stands of pipe, it got stuck again. (Tr. 

360). At this point, Mullins called Brown and the Knight Tool rep, Ogle, to come to the Rig 

Operator station. (Tr. 360). Both Ogle and Brown watched Mullins work the string up and down 

a few times, unsuccessfully trying to free this second stuck pipe/fish. (Tr. 360). Brown 

confirmed this during his trial testimony, indicating that pipe stand number 17 is the point at 

which “it got real stuck.” (Tr. 433). 

Ogle then told Mullins to increase the pull weight to 120,000 pounds and set off the jars 

again. (Tr. 361). At that point, Mullins asked Brown if they could get Justin Turner down from 

7. This is one area where Mullins’ and Brown’s testimony differed. According to Brown, extracting the first 15 

stands of pipe only took 10–15 minutes. (Tr. 477). 
7

the elevated tube board above the rig. (Tr. 362). Ogle told Mullins and Brown: “You know we 

already pulled the 170[k]. This is not nothing up there he’s not used to. Don’t worry about it.” 

(Tr. 363). Mullins again asked Brown what he should do, and Brown told him to listen to Ogle. 

(Tr. 363). Mullins followed those instructions and pulled until the indicator read 120,000 pounds 

of force and set off the jars, which caused a “big jolt” to the rig. However, it did not free the 

stuck pipe. (Tr. 363). At this point, the Mid-States company man, Luce, made his way up to the 

Rig Operator’s position. (Tr. 365). Also at that time, the two other derrick floor hands got down 

off the rig. (Tr. 366–68). 

Rig Operator Mullins was then accompanied by Ogle, Luce, and Brown, while derrick 

hand Justin Turner was still 60 feet up above the rig floor on the elevated tube board. (Tr. 366). 

Ogle directed Mullins to increase the rig pulling force to 140,000 pounds, at which point Mullins 

told his supervisor Brown again, “We need to get Justin down.” (Tr. 369). After Ogle said it 

would be all right, Brown told him to proceed, leaving Turner up in the mast. (Tr. 369). Mullins 

slowly increased the force of the pull to 140,000 pounds, but it still failed to free the stuck pipe. 

(Tr. 370). Ogle and Luce then told him to increase the pull to 160,000 pounds. (Tr. 370). 

Mullins again asked his supervisor Brown to bring Justin Turner down off the rig. (Tr. 370). In 

response, Ogle told him, “If you’re that worried about Justin, you need to holler up there and tell 

him to hold onto something.” (Tr. 370). Mullins looked to Brown, who was standing right next 

to him and told him: “Just do what they’re saying.” (Tr. 371). Ogle followed this by mocking 

Respondent’s crew for being too timid and called them derogatory names. (Tr. 371). Following 

the instructions he was given, Mullins slowly increased the rig pull force to 160,000 pounds, at 

which point they noticed the front end of the rig lifting up off the ground. (Tr. 372-373). 
8

According to Mullins, the pipe then broke free, and the rig fell back toward the ground, and 

flipped over on its side. (Tr. 373). 

Though Brown and Mullins agreed on many facts during the trial, there were some 

discrepancies. When Brown testified, he confirmed that Mullins asked to remove Turner from 

the mast before they lifted to 120,000 pounds, but claimed they did not set off the jars during the 

time Turner was in the elevated platform. (Tr. 434–35). Once they reached 120,000 pounds of 

force, Brown also confirmed that Mullins again asked if they could remove Turner from the 

elevated derrick platform. (Tr. 425). Brown also confirmed that Ogle referred to Mullins in a 

derogatory way after voicing his concerns, and that Luce, the company man, just laughed. (Tr. 

426). Brown also confirmed that he told Mullins they were “still good right now”, and with 

Turner still on the elevated platform, directed Mullins increase the pull weight to 130,000 

pounds, then 140,000 pounds, then 150,000 pounds. (Tr. 426). 

Brown testified that once they reached 150,000 pounds, contrary to Mullins’ testimony, 

that he told the two floor hands and Turner to get off the rig. (Tr. 426). Brown further testified 

that he was arguing with Luce about Turner coming down from the derrick tube platform, just as 

the rig started lifting off of the ground. (Tr. 427). 

 The Court found Mullins’ testimony to be more credible than Brown’s. Mullins was at 

the controls of the rig the entire time, and had first-hand knowledge of the rig pull settings and 

progressions. Although Brown claimed that jars were not set off again at 120,000 pounds, the 

Court specifically credits Mullins over Brown on this issue. Mullins testified very specifically, 

that Ogle told him to re-set the jars at 120,000 to try to free this second “fish.” Mullins was the 

one specifically responsible for re-setting those jars and increasing the pull pressure to set them 

off. Given the impact that jarring had on the rig, Mullins’ testimony regarding the jars explains 
9

both his heightened concern for Turner’s safety, as well as the floor hands’ subsequent decision 

to vacate the rig floor, at a point when Brown, Ogle, and Luce seemed to be comfortable with the

employees’ locations and working conditions. 

The Court also notes that Mullins’ testimony was consistent throughout, whereas Brown 

hedged or changed his testimony in some areas. For example, when Brown was asked what 

constituted a “normal pull” for the rig, he testified that it was equal to the weight of the work 

string/pipe string below the rig, which is how Mullins described it. (Tr. 388, 469–71). However, 

in response to questions from Respondent’s counsel, Brown changed his testimony to suggest 

that a “normal” pull could far exceed the weight of the work string/pipe string. (Tr. 482–83). 

Such variation in testimony suggests, in part, that Brown’s may have been motivated by his 

desire to show he had made appropriate supervisory decisions under the circumstances. 

As the rig collapsed, Mullins and Brown were thrown from the walkway they were using 

to try to escape. (Tr. 377). When he regained consciousness underneath the toppled rig, Mullins 

was covered in hot oil. (Tr. 378). He subsequently underwent multiple surgeries as a result of his 

injuries. Turner, who was still on the elevated platform above the rig floor throughout all of 

these events, was killed in the collapse. (Tr. 381). Brown was found on top of plastic chemical 

tanks with iron and wire guidelines laying across him. (Tr. 381–82). Brown had to be lifeflighted to the nearest hospital, where he underwent multiple surgeries. (Tr. 382–83). 

OSHA began its investigation on August 4, 2015, approximately a week-and-a-half after 

the accident. (Tr. 146). Complainant sent CSHO Wayne Eyerly from the Oklahoma City Area 

Office and James Nelson, an engineer and consultant with the OSHA Technical Center, to 

inspect the site. Nelson was called in to provide technical support for the inspection based on his 

previous participation in investigations involving oil and gas wells. (Tr. 144–45). At this point in 
10

time, the rig remained in the same position it was in after it had fallen on July 23, 2015. (Tr. 148; 

Ex. C-4). 

The inspection was limited. Nelson and Eyerly took pictures and asked questions of the 

company representatives that were on site, but did not conduct interviews of any individuals 

involved in the accident itself. (Tr. 149–50, 160–61). Accordingly, in support of their 

determination that a violation occurred, Nelson and Eyerly relied heavily upon statements 

provided to police officers after the accident. (Tr. 164, 166). Based on their investigation, 

Complainant determined that Respondent violated Section 5(a)(1) of the Act when it engaged in

unusually hard pulls while Justin Turner was on the derrick’s elevated tube deck, 60 feet above 

the rig floor. 

Discussion 

Citation 1, Item 1

 Complainant alleged a serious violation of the Act in Citation 1, Item 1 as follows: 

Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: The employer 

did not furnish employment and a place of employment which were free from 

recognized hazards that were causing or likely to cause death or serious physical 

harm during an oil and gas services rig fall over event: 

At the worksite: On or about July 23, 2015, employees working within an oil and 

gas service rig were not removed from the derrick prior to applying unusual 

loading on the rig. 

Among others, one feasible and acceptable means of abatement would be to 

comply with American Petroleum Institute (API) 54, Recommended Practice for 

Occupational Safety for Oil and Gas Well Drilling and Servicing Operations, 

Chapter 9. 

Citation and Notification of Penalty at 6.

To establish a violation of the general duty clause, Complainant must prove “(1) a 

condition or activity in the workplace presented a hazard; (2) the employer or its industry 

recognized the hazard; (3) the hazard was causing or likely to cause death or serious physical 
11

harm; and (4) a feasible and effective means existed to eliminate or materially reduce the 

hazard.” S.J. Louis Constr. of Tex., 25 BNA OSHC 1892, 1894 (No. 12-1045, 2016). Citing to 

the American Petroleum Institute’s Recommended Practice 54, Complainant alleges Respondent

violated the general duty clause by attempting an unusual pull to free a piece of stuck pipe while 

employees were on the servicing rig, thereby creating falling and struck-by hazards. Respondent 

argues that Complainant failed to establish a violation because: (1) he did not define what 

“unusual loading” is and, therefore, did not establish the existence of a hazard; (2) he did not 

establish Respondent or the well servicing industry recognized such a hazard under the 

circumstances presented in this case; and (3) he failed to show Respondent had adequate time to 

abate the hazard once it became aware of the hazard. 

 The term “unusual”, which is used twice in the cited API Recommended Practice, is not 

specifically defined by the API. However, the Court finds that Respondent was aware that 

pulling on a piece of stuck pipe, at the increased levels involved in this case, with the use of 

jarring, resulted in unusual loading on the rig and created a hazard for the employee on the 

elevated tube stand. Thus, Respondent should have removed Turner from the rig before the 

pulling force was increased to 120,000 pounds and the jars were set off. Accordingly, consistent 

with the discussion below, the Court finds Respondent violated the general duty clause as alleged 

by Complainant. 

The Conditions Created a Hazard for Employees 

“[H]azards must be defined in a way that apprises the employer of its obligations and 

identifies conditions or practices over which the employer can reasonably be expected to 

exercise control.” Pelron Corp., 12 BNA OSHC 1833, (No. 82-388, 1986) (citing Davey Tree, 

11 BNA OSHC 1898, 1899 (No. 77-2350, 1984)). A hazard is a “condition that creates or 
12

contributes to an increased risk that an event causing death or serious bodily harm to employees 

will occur.” Baroid Div. of NL Indust., Inc., 660 F.2d 439, 444 (10th Cir. 1981). If the evidence 

shows that a practice could result in serious physical harm “upon other than a freakish or utterly 

implausible concurrence of circumstances”, then Complainant has established the existence of a 

hazard. See Nat’l Realty & Constr. Co., Inc. v. OSHRC, 489 F.2d 1257, 1265 n.33 (D.C. Cir. 

1973). 

The original basis for Complainant’s claim of a hazard is the API RP 54, Chapter 9, 

which states: “During instances of unusual loading of the derrick or mast, such as when making 

any unusually hard pull, only the driller or other essential supervisory personnel should be on the 

rig floor, and no one should be in the derrick, mast, or cellar.” (Ex. C-10 at § 9.2.11). 

Complainant argues that Respondent’s crew engaged in unusual loading when it left its 

employees—other than Mullins—on the rig floor and in the mast while it pulled and jarred on 

the second pipe that had become stuck. Respondent contends that Complainant failed to establish 

this element in two ways: (1) he failed to define “unusual”, such that he could characterize 

Respondent’s activities as hazardous; and (2) the weight indicator only showed a pull of 160,000 

pounds, which is well below the 300,000-pound capacity of the rig and, thus, not unusual. The 

Court agrees with Complainant.

The hazardous condition resulted from a confluence of employee location and specific rig 

operation; namely, that employees (other than the Rig Operator) should not have been on the rig 

while it engaged in “an unusually hard pull”. In other words, an unusually hard pull is not, of 

itself, a violative condition. It only becomes so when employees are located on the rig derrick, 

mast, or cellar during such activity. As it turns out, Respondent’s own safety policy contains a 

prohibition that is similar, but more detailed, than API RP 54. (Ex. C-18 at p. 23, No. 17). 
13

According to Respondent’s policy, “Crews are to be off the rig floor, out of the cellar, and out of 

the derrick when the following operations are being conducted: unseating a pump, un-landing 

tubing, pulling the first joint of tubing, jarring or pulling on stuck pipe, and when more than 

normal pulling force is required.” (Id.) (emphasis added). Respondent was engaged in both 

highlighted activities in the time period leading up to the rig collapse. The Court finds “more 

than normal” (Respondent’s policy term) and “unusually hard” (API’s term) express the same 

concept, albeit in slightly different ways. 

Mullins testified that “more than normal pulling force,” per Respondent’s safety policy, 

equates to a pull that exceeds the weight of the pipe string below the rig. (Tr. 388, 391; Ex. C-18 

at 23). In other words, a normal pull would mean the weight indicator should provide a reading 

that is roughly equal to whatever the weight of the pipe string is, including the BHA. This is 

consistent with Brown’s testimony in response to questions from the Court: “normal” pulling 

force is generally equal to the string weight, which would vary depending on how far down the 

string has to reach and the type of equipment being used. (Tr. 469-471). In this case, both 

Mullins and Brown testified that the force necessary to extract the 96,000 pound pipe string

(after dislodging the first stuck pipe) was roughly 85–100k pounds, which accounted for minor 

fluctuations as the first 15 to 16 pipe stands were removed. The Court finds, consistent with 

Mullins’ testimony, that the pull became “unusual” or “more than normal” when the rig pulling 

force was increased to 120,000 pounds and the jars were triggered. (Tr. 360, 433–34). And 

further still, since the pipe remained stuck, the pulling force continued to be increase to 170,000 

pounds, almost twice the pipe string weight. (Tr. 435). All while Turner remained on the 

elevated tube board above the rig floor. 
14

 Respondent argues that the pull was not unusual because this rig was capable of lifting up 

to 300,000 pounds, and that Brown had previously been on a rig when it pulled 260,000 pounds. 

(Tr. 446, 459–60, 482–83). The Court finds that these two facts, in isolation, do not resolve the 

issue. While the rig may have been capable of pulling 300,000 pounds, the Court finds the 

prohibition against having employees on the rig while engaged in an “unusual” or “harder than 

normal” pull relates more to the fact that Respondent’s crew, in this case, was jarring stuck pipe 

at nearly twice the pipe string weight. Under other circumstances, a smooth pull on unstuck 

pipe, with no need for jarring, at 200,000 pounds of force, might not be considered “unusual” or 

“more than normal” by a reasonable person familiar with the industry. 

These facts further support the conclusion that this pull was “unusual” and “more than 

normal”: (1) Mullins stopped when he was asked to increase the pull weight to 120,000 pounds 

and set the jars, to call Respondent’s Rig Supervisor Brown from his truck to the operator’s 

station, (2) Mullins repeatedly asked his supervisor, Brown, to remove Turner from the elevated 

platform, based on his understanding that setting off jars and pulling far in excess of the string 

weight was hazardous, and a violation of company policy; and (3) the two other derrick hand 

employees decided to get off the rig floor when 120,000 pounds of force, and jarring, failed to 

free the stuck pipe.

The Court finds that Respondent failed to free its worksite of a hazardous condition for 

Turner, who continued to work in an elevated platform above the derrick floor while “unusual” 

and “more than normal” pulling force was applied to stuck oil well pipe. Complainant 

established the existence of a hazard.

Respondent and Its Industry Recognized the Hazard 
15

A hazard is recognized when either the cited employer or its industry recognizes the risk 

of harm from the cited conditions. See Arcadian Corp., 20 BNA OSHC 2001, 2008 (No. 93-

0628, 2004). Probative evidence of industry recognition includes, amongst other things, 

voluntary industry standards, such as those published by ANSI, NFPA, and API. See, e.g., 

Cargill, Inc., 10 BNA OSHC 1398 (No. 78-5707, 1982) (NFPA); Kokosing Constr. Co., 17 

BNA OSHC 1869 (No. 92-2596, 1996) (ANSI). Regarding employer recognition, the 

Commission stated, “While an employer’s safety precautions alone do not establish that the

employer believed that those precautions were necessary for compliance with the Act . . . 

precautions taken by an employer can be used to establish hazard recognition in conjunction with 

other evidence.” Beverly Enters., Inc., 19 BNA OSHC 1161 (Nos. 91-3144 et al., 2000) 

(emphasis added) (citing Wheeling-Pittsburgh Corp., 16 BNA OSHC 1218 (No. 89-3389, 1993); 

Waldon, 16 BNA OSHC 1052 (No. 89-3097), 1993). 

The record established that this hazard was recognized by the oil servicing industry as a 

whole, as well as Respondent specifically. First, Respondent’s policy specifically stated that 

employees shall not be on the rig while setting off jars, pulling on stuck pipe, or engaging in a 

harder-than-normal pull. (Ex. C-18). The record clearly established that Respondent’s crew was 

engaged in all three of those activities on July 23, 2015. Second, each time he was asked to 

increase the force of the pull to 120,000 pounds and beyond, Mullins asked Brown to remove 

Turner from the elevated tube deck. This request was made three different times. This 

demonstrated Mullins’ knowledge and awareness of Respondent’s policy, and was specifically 

directed to the person with authority over Respondent’s operations at the well site. Third, the two 

other deck hands exiting the rig floor after Mullins increased the pull to 120,000 and set off the 

jars, demonstrated their recognition of the hazard and knowledge of Respondent’s policy. 
16

Alternatively, if Brown’s testimony that he directed the two floor hands to get off the rig floor at 

some point is believed, it further demonstrates that Respondent’s supervisor recognized the 

hazard and had knowledge of Respondent’s policy. See Missouri Basin Well Svc., Inc., 26 BNA 

OSHC 2314 (No. 13-1817, 2018) (finding supervisor’s recognition of the hazard was imputable 

to his employer). 

Additionally, the Court also finds the well servicing industry recognized the hazard at 

issue. Though Nelson was not qualified as an expert, he did have experience performing 

investigations of oil and gas rigs and was familiar with the API standards. (Tr. 142). According 

to him, API RP 54, Chapter 9 applied to the work performed by Respondent at this site. (Tr. 226, 

239). Given the similarities between the referenced API standard and Respondent’s own safety 

policy on this issue, the Court agrees. Respondent and its industry clearly recognized this 

hazard. 

The Hazard Caused Serious Injury and Death

Complainant must show that Respondent’s employees were “exposed to a hazard likely 

to cause death or serious physical harm.” Peacock Eng’g, Inc., 26 BNA OSHC 1588 (No. 11-

2780, 2017). The appropriate standard for assessing this element is “not the likelihood of an 

accident or injury, but whether, if an accident occurs, the results are likely to cause death or 

serious harm.” Waldon, 16 BNA OSHC at 1060. Here, the Court does not need to make a 

speculative assessment of possible injuries from the hazardous condition. As a result of the 

mobile rig collapse, one employee died when he fell from the elevated tube deck, and two others 

received serious injuries, which required hospitalization and multiple surgeries. Accordingly, the 

Court finds that the violation was properly characterized as serious, since the hazard was likely 

to cause death or serious physical harm. 
17

Complainant Established Feasible Means to Abate the Hazard 

To establish this element, Complainant must “‘specify the proposed abatement measures 

and demonstrate both that the measures are capable of being put into effect and that they would 

be effective in materially reducing the incidence of the hazard.”’ Arcadian Corp., 20 BNA 

OSHC 2001 (quoting Beverly Enters., Inc., 19 BNA OSHC 1161 (No. 91-3144 et al., 2000)). 

“Feasible means of abatement are established if “conscientious experts, familiar with the 

industry’ would prescribe those means and methods to eliminate or materially reduce the 

recognized hazard.” Id. (quoting Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 17 BNA OSHC 1993)). Where an 

employer has taken steps to abate the recognized hazard, Complainant must show those measures 

are inadequate. Alabama Power Co., 13 BNA OSHC 1240 (citing Cerro Metal Prods. Div., 

Marmon Grp., Inc., 12 BNA OSHC 1821, 1822 (No. 78-5159, 1986)). 

 Complainant established that the proposed abatement would have been adequate, and 

easy to implement, to address the hazard characterized in the citation. Once Respondent 

determined that a second piece of pipe was “real stuck”;

8 that the pulling force of the rig needed 

to be increased to 120,000 pounds; and that the jars needed to be re-set for use, derrick hand 

Turner should have been removed from the elevated tube platform above the derrick floor. Such 

action would have been consistent with API RP 54, 9.2.11 and Respondent’s own safety policy. 

Instead, despite multiple requests from Rig Operator Mullins to remove him, Turner was left 

aloft in the tubing board for approximately 20–30 minutes through significant increases in 

pulling force and jarring. (Tr. 433, 452, 476).9 

Based on these facts, the Court further rejects Respondent’s argument that abatement was 

infeasible because the hazard purportedly became apparent only a minute or two before the 

8 As described by Rig Supervisor Brown. (Tr. 433). 
18

accident. The hazard did not materialize when the rig started to lift, wobble, and tip. By the 

terms of the API standard and Respondent’s own safety policy, the hazard to Turner arose at the 

point the rig was no longer capable of removing the pipe string through the application of normal 

pulling force. Indeed, this was the point at which Brown was called over to the rig controls, and 

Mullins began his repeated requests to remove Turner from the mast platform. This particular 

abatement was uncomplicated and required nothing more of Respondent than to follow industry 

standards, comply with its own safety policy, and listen to its Rig Operator. Turner could have 

simply been instructed to get off the rig. Accordingly, the Court finds Complainant established a 

feasible means to abate the hazard. 

Respondent’s Employees Were Exposed to a Hazard 

 As discussed above, Turner was exposed to the hazard when he was allowed to remain on 

the elevated tube platform, 60 feet above the derrick floor, while the rig pulling force was 

gradually increased to nearly double the pipe string weight, and jars were set off. Employee 

exposure to the hazard was established. 

Respondent Had Knowledge of the Violation 

To prove this element, Complainant must show Respondent knew or, with the exercise of 

reasonable diligence, could have known of the violation. Dun-Par Engineered Form Co., 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. 

Phoenix Roofing, Inc., 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. Dover Elevator Co., 16 BNA OSHC 1281, 1286 (No. 91-862, 1993). If 

a supervisor is, or should be, aware of a hazardous condition, it is reasonable to charge the 
19

employer with that knowledge. See Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. OSHRC, 623 F.2d 155, 

158 (10th Cir. 1980). 

Brown, Respondent’s on-site supervisor, was standing right next to Mullins from the time 

the decision was made to increase the pulling force to 120,000 and re-set the jars, to the point 

right before the rig tipped over. (Tr. 372–73). Brown estimated that this lasted approximately 20 

minutes. He was specifically aware of the conditions of the rig, the location of derrick hand 

Turner, and the multiple requests made by Mullins to remove Turner from the rig mast. Rig 

Supervisor Brown’s knowledge is imputed to Respondent. Complainant established employer 

knowledge of the violative condition. Accordingly, the Court finds Complainant established the 

prima facie elements of the general duty clause violation alleged in Citation 1, Item 1.

Respondent Failed to Prove the Affirmative Defense of 

Unpreventable Employee Misconduct 

In order to prevail on a claim of unpreventable employee misconduct, Respondent must 

show: (1) it had established work rules designed to prevent the violation; (2) it had adequately 

communicated those rules to its employees; (3) it had taken steps to discover violations of the 

rules; and (4) it effectively enforced the rules when violations were detected. Am. Eng’g & Dev. 

Corp., 23 BNA OSHC 2093, 2096–97 (No. 10-0359, 2012). In other words, it is incumbent 

upon Respondent to “demonstrate that the actions of the employee were a departure from a

uniformly and effectively communicated and enforced workrule [sic].” Archer-Western 

Contractors Ltd., 15 BNA OSHC 1013 (No. 87-1067, 1991). 

During the examination of Brown, Respondent asked whether an employee could be 

disciplined for his/her failure to exercise stop work authority in a situation that calls for it. (Tr. 

462). Complainant objected on the basis that such evidence was irrelevant in light of

Respondent’s discovery responses, wherein it stated three separate times that “it’s not currently 
20

asserting an employee misconduct defense but reserves the right to assert such defense at a later 

time.” (Tr. 463–65); see also Compl’t Br. at 23–24. Respondent said that it felt compelled to reassert the affirmative defense at trial, with no prior notice to Complainant or the Court, because 

Mullins testified he exercised his stop work authority by pausing the operation and asking at 

various points to have Turner come down from the tubing board. (Tr. 408–409). Respondent, 

without producing any evidence in support, argued this was inconsistent with deposition 

testimony Mullins had given in a separate, civil case. (Tr. 465–67). The Court left open the issue 

of whether the defense was still available to Respondent and directed the parties to address it in 

their post-trial briefs. (Tr. 467–68). 

Although given the opportunity to do so, Respondent did not pursue the matter further in 

its examination of witnesses or in its post-trial brief. Thus, although Respondent asserted the 

unpreventable employee misconduct defense in its Answer, the Court finds its discovery 

responses and failure to argue the defense in its post-trial brief are tantamount to abandonment. 

Georgia-Pacific Corp., 15 BNA OSHC 1127, 1991 CCH OSHD ¶29,395 (No. 89-2713, 1991).

Accordingly, the Court rejects any claim of unpreventable employee misconduct by Respondent. 

Citation 1, Item 1 will be AFFIRMED.

Penalty

In calculating appropriate penalties for affirmed violations, Section 17(j) of the Act 

requires the Commission give due consideration to four criteria: (1) the size of the employer’s 

business, (2) the gravity of the violation, (3) the good faith of the employer, and (4) the 

employer’s prior history of violations. Gravity is the primary consideration and is determined by 

the number of employees exposed, the duration of the exposure, the precautions taken against 

injury, and the likelihood of an actual injury. J.A. Jones Construction Co., 15 BNA OSHC 2201 
21

(No. 87-2059, 1993). It is well established that the Commission and its judges conduct de novo

penalty determinations and have full discretion to assess penalties based on the facts of each case 

and the applicable statutory criteria. Valdak Corp., 17 BNA OSHC 1135 (No. 93-0239, 1995); 

Allied Structural Steel, 2 BNA OSHC 1457 (No. 1681, 1975). 

 Complainant proposed a penalty of $7,000, which, at the time of the citation, was the 

highest penalty allowed for a serious violation of the Act. Complainant determined that 

Respondent had roughly 5,000 employees, and therefore, did not reduce the proposed penalty

based on the employer’s size. (Ex. C-1). Complainant also determined Respondent was not 

eligible for a reduction based on history because of previous OSHA violations at other jobsites. 

(Ex. C-3). Further, Complainant declined to apply a good faith penalty reduction. Based on the 

totality of circumstances discussed above, the Court finds that a penalty of $7,000 for Citation 1, 

Item 1 is appropriate. 

ORDER

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

that Citation 1, Item 1 is AFFIRMED as a SERIOUS violation of the Act, and a penalty of 

$7,000 is ASSESSED. 

/s/ Brian A. Duncan Judge Brian A. Duncan 

 U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission 

Date: December 2, 2019 

Denver, Colorado