THIS CASE IS NOT A FINAL ORDER OF THE REVIEW COMMISSION AS IT IS 

PENDING COMMISSION REVIEW

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

 

 

 DOCKET NO. 22-1443

 

Appearances:

Carlton Jackson, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Dallas, TX

For Complainant

Andrew Gross, Esq., Atlanta, GA

For Respondent

Before: Administrative Law Judge Brian A. Duncan

DECISION AND ORDER

This matter is before the United States Occupational Safety and Health Review 

Commission (“Commission”) pursuant to a Petition of Mayfield Energy for Fees Pursuant to the 

Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. §504 (“EAJA”) and OSHRC’s Rules Implementing EAJA, 

29 C.F.R. §§2204.101 et seq. 

On August 8, 2022, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) 

conducted an inspection at 10 Marshall Lane, Aransas Pass, Texas. As a result of that 

investigation, OSHA issued a Citation and Notification of Penalty (“Citation”) to Respondent

alleging two serious violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §

651 et seq. (“the Act”), with proposed penalties of $8,702.00. Respondent timely contested the 

Citation. 

SECRETARY OF LABOR, 

 

 Complainant,

 

 v. 

MAYFIELD ENERGY, LLC, 

 

 Respondent.
2

The case was docketed by the Commission on November 30, 2022. On February 16, 2022, 

the undersigned was assigned to preside over the case and subsequently ordered the parties to 

confer and submit a proposed pre-trial schedule. Shortly thereafter, on March 9, 2023, the parties 

filed a Report of Proposed Settlement. The Court afforded the parties thirty days to file their formal 

Joint Notice of Settlement. However, on April 7, 2023, Complainant filed a Notice of Withdrawal 

of Citation and Complaint pursuant to Commission Rule 102, noting that “[t]his is not a settlement 

with Respondent. Complainant takes this action unilaterally, pursuant to its unreviewable 

discretion to withdraw a citation. Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union, 474 U.S. 3 

(1985).” Therefore, on April 13, 2023, the Court terminated the proceedings and closed the case. 

On May 2, 2023, Respondent filed a Petition of Mayfield Energy for Fees Pursuant to the 

Equal Access to Justice Act. Respondent seeks recoupment of $4,068.75 in attorney’s fees. 

Complainant subsequently filed an Answer denying Respondent’s entitlement to fees. Respondent 

subsequently filed a Reply. 

The Equal Access to Justice Act applies to OSHRC proceedings pursuant to 29 C.F.R. 

§2204.101 et seq. An eligible Respondent can be awarded attorney fees and other related costs

“when it prevails over the Secretary of Labor, unless the Secretary’s position in the proceeding 

was substantially justified or special circumstances make an award unjust.” Id. “Alternatively, an 

eligible party, even if not a prevailing party, may receive an award under 5 U.S.C. 504(a)(4) when 

it successfully defends against an excessive demand made by the Secretary.” Id. The alternative 

referenced in §504(a)(4) requires a showing that “the demand by the agency is substantially in 

excess of the decision of the adjudicative officer and is unreasonable when compared with such 

decision, under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3

“A party seeking an award under EAJA shall file an application with the judge that 

conducted the adversarial adjudication within 30 days after the final disposition of the adversary 

adjudication.” 29 C.F.R. §2204.301(a). In this instance, Respondent timely filed its Petition on 

May 2, 2023, within thirty days of Complainant’s Notice of Withdrawal and the Court’s Order 

Terminating Proceedings. 

To establish eligibility for an award, Respondent must first establish that its net worth, at 

the time the adversary adjudication was initiated, did not exceed $7,000,000, and that it did not 

employ more than 500 employees. 29 C.F.R. §2204.201; 5 U.S.C. §504(b)(1)(B). Respondent 

included various exhibits with its Petition to establish eligibility: tax returns indicating that its net 

profit in 2020 was $911.00, and $193,311 in 2021; a spreadsheet indicating a cost basis for its 

assets in 2020 and 2021 was $317,296.00; and property tax assessments for the two oil wells it 

owns and operates in Texas, indicating a total assessed value of $121,340. Respondent argues that 

“[w]ith this data, by no calculation could the net worth of Mayfield Energy even begin to approach 

the $7,000,000 threshold limit for EAJA eligibility.” Respondent also included a signed 

declaration from Respondent’s owner that it “has no employees. Nor has it had any employees at 

any time in its history.” The Court notes that Secretary of Labor’s Answer to Mayfield Energy 

LLC’s Application for Fees Under the Equal Access to Justice Act did not dispute, or otherwise 

respond in any way, to these allegations of eligibility in Respondent’s Petition. Accordingly, the 

Court deems Respondent an eligible party, in terms of net worth and employee limits, for an award 

under EAJA. 
4

Once eligibility is determined, Respondent must establish that it was the “prevailing 

party.”1 The parties filed Joint Stipulations on September 1, 2023, indicating that “an evidentiary 

record is not necessary,” that “the court can decide the merits of the case, as a matter of law, based 

on the pleadings,” and that “the primary issue to be resolved is whether the Respondent is a 

‘prevailing party’ as a matter of law under the Equal Access to Justice Act.” 

Two fairly recent OSHRC ALJ decisions have analyzed whether eligible employers can 

establish themselves as the “prevailing party” when OSHA unilaterally withdraws alleged 

violations, as in this case. In Secretary v. Benton-Georgia, LLC, 2016 WL 6248015 (OSHRC 

ALJ, Sept. 6, 2016), the Judge discussed several leading cases, including two presented by the 

parties here: the Supreme Court’s decisionsin Buckhannon Board and Care Home v. West Virginia 

Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 121 S.Ct. 1835 (2001) and CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. 

EEOC, 136 S.Ct. 1642 (2016). The Judge in Benton-Georgia soundly concluded that OSHA’s 

unilateral withdrawal of a Citation “affords [Respondent] no judicial relief” and therefore, 

Respondent cannot be the “prevailing party” for the purposes of an EAJA award. The same 

rationale was later examined and adopted in Secretary v. Terence Froman, Inc., 2019 WL 7667644 

(OSHRC ALJ, Dec. 2, 2019). Upon review, this Court finds the Judges’ analyses in the BentonGeorgia and Terence Froman cases to be persuasive and adopts those analyses here. 

The Buckhannon Court clearly rejected “catalyst theory” fee recovery in several circuits

and concluded that a party cannot establish itself as a “prevailing party” unless it “has been 

awarded some relief by the court.” Buckhannon at 1839. No such relief of any kind was granted 

1 The alternative recovery method, pursuant to §504(a)(4), is not applicable here as there was no “decision 

of the adjudicative officer”, and therefore, no way to compare such a decision to the “demands of the Agency.” 
5

in the present case. Complainant exercised prosecutorial discretion in choosing to voluntarily 

withdraw the alleged violations. Such an exercise of prosecutorial discretion is unreviewable and 

required no approval from this Court. Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co., supra. Simply as an administerial 

function, this Court later terminated and closed the case as a result of the withdrawal. 

Conclusion

As noted above, it is Respondent’s burden to establish that it was the “prevailing party” in 

this case. As a matter of law, since Complainant exercised its prosecutorial discretion and 

unilaterally withdrew the Complaint and Citation, Respondent failed to establish that it was the 

“prevailing party” under the Equal Access to Justice Act and the Commission’s implementing 

regulations. Accordingly, Respondent is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees or costs. 

ORDER

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

the Petition of Mayfield Energy for Fees Pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Brian A. Duncan

Dated: October 10, 2023

Denver, CO

Judge Brian A. Duncan

U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission