N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT TEIC HER T C ONSTR

UC TION,
Pe titione r-Appe lla

nt,

v. SEC R ETAR

Y O F LAB OR , UNITED STATES DEPAR TM ENT OF LAB OR , R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 12-71508 OSHAC No. 10-0220

M EM OR

ANDUM *

Pe t ition for R e vie w of the Oc c u pa tiona l Sa fe ty a n d He a lth R e vie w C o m m ission Subm itte d M a y

14, 2014 ** Sa n Fra n c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : SILVER M AN an d G O U L D , C irc uit Judge s, a nd LEM ELLE, Distric t Judge

. *** Pe titione r T e ic he rt C onstruc t ion (“ Te ic h er t ” ) pe titions for re vie w of the Oc c upa tiona l Sa fe ty a nd He a lth R e v ie w C om m ission’ s (“ OSHR C ” ) de c ision finding thre e viola

t ions of the Oc c u

pa tiona l Sa fe ty a nd H ea lth Ac t of 1 970 (“ t he Ac t” ) a t 

# FIL ED

JUN 10 2014
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a p propria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d by

Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

** The pa ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a s e is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a rgum e nt. Se e Fe d . R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble Iva n L. R . Le m e l le , Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for the E a s te rn Distric t of Louisia na , sitting by

de signa tion.Te ic he rt’ s c onstru ct i o n s ite in Pa so R oble s, C a l ifornia

. B e c a use the OSHR C ’ s findings a re supporte d

by substa ntia l e vide nc e , we a ffirm

. Following an inspe c tion by OSHA C om plia n c e Offic e r Va n Arde n Howe ll, Te ic he rt wa s i ssue d a c ita tion on Fe brua

ry 1, 2010, a lle ging four se rious viola tions of the A ct
. The first viola

tion wa s la t e r d ism isse d by a gre e m e nt of the pa rtie s. The

re m a ining thre e a l le ge d viola t i ons of: (1) 29 C .F.R

. § 1 926.601(b)(14) for fa ilure to

c he c k a nd c orre c t the bra ke s o n a t r uc k be fore pla c ing the t ruc k into se rvic e ; (2) 2 9 C .F.R

. § 1926.651(j)(2) for fa iling to ke e p a spoil pile a t le a st two fe e t from the e d ge of a n e xc a va tion; a n d (3) 29 C .F.R

. § 1926.652(b) for fa iling t o c om ply with the prote c tive sy ste m for the e xc a va tion, de signe d by a re giste re d

profe ssiona l e ngine e r. Adm inistra

tive La w J

udge De n nis L. Phillips (“ ALJ” ) he ld a he a ring on T ei c he rt’ s obje c tions to the c ita

tio n s, an d u ltim a te l y c onc lude d tha t t he thre e c ita

t ions we re supporte d by t

he e v ide nc e . Te ic he rt file d for d i s cr et io na ry re vie w to the OSHR C , whic h de c line d re vie w, m a king the ALJ’ s ruling the fin al o r d er o f the OSHR C

. 2 9 C .F.R . § 2200.90(d). W e m u st a ffirm the ALJ’ s findings o f fa c t “ i f supporte d by substa ntia l e vide nc e on the re c ord c onside re d a s a whole ” 29 U.S.C

. § 660(a ), a nd we a c c e pt “ re a sona ble fa c t ua l infe re nc e s dra

wn by the [ALJ] .” Phe lps Dodge C o rp. v . Oc c upational Safe ty & He alth Re v ie w C

omm’n , 725 F.2d 1237, 1239 (9th Ci r . 1 9 84 )

. Furthe r, we “ m ust

2uphold a de c ision of the OSHR C unle s s i t is a rbitra ry a nd c a

pric ious, not in

a c c orda nc e with the la

w, or in e xc e ss o f the a

u thority gra nte d by OSHA.” Loomis C abine t C o. v . Oc c upational Safe ty & He alth Re v ie w C omm’n , 20 F.3d 938, 941 (9th C ir. 1994). W e first a d dre s s the viola tion of 29 C .F.R

. § 1926.601(b)(14). T h e re gul at i o n
re quire s tha t ve hic le s be inspe c te d a t the be ginning of e a c h shift

. T e ic h e rt a rgue s tha t the e v ide nc e supports a c onc lusion tha t the truck ’s bra ke s we re inspe c te d— pointing
to e m ploy e e Ge orge M a

rque z ’ s sta

te m e n t to Howe ll t

ha t h e inspe c te d t h e bra ke s. Howe ve r, this e v ide nc e wa s re je c te d by the ALJ. The ALJ f o u n d t ha t the re quire d

sa fe ty s he e t s, whic h doc u m e nt whe n truc ks a re c h e c k e d, we re not fille d out on the da y of the a c c ide nt. Furthe r, the ALJ found tha t no s a fe ty she e t in the re c ord showe d tha t M a rque z e ve r file d a sa fe t y she e t during the m onth be fore the a c c ide nt. Ac c o rdingly , the ALJ disc re dite d M a rque z ’ s c la im s a nd found tha t the t ruc k ha d not be e n inspe c te d. We m a y not ove rturn the se c re dibility findings unle ss the y a re “ ‘ inher en t l y i n cr ed i ble or pa te n tly unre a sona ble .’ ” Todd Pac

. Shipy a rds C orp. v . Dir., Offic e o

f W ork e rs C omp. Programs, U.S. De

p’t of Labor , 914 F.2d 1317, 1321 (9th C ir. 1990) (quoting C

o rde ro v . Triple A Mac h. Shop , 5 8 0 F.2d 1 331, 1335 (9th C ir. 1978)). The ALJ’ s findings a re n e ithe r. M a rque z ’ s ina bility to e xpla in why

he did not fill out the

sa fe ty form s, a nd a la c k o f e vide n c e tha t M a rque z f i l l ed out the form s in the

3pa st— c ouple d with the fa c t tha t a p ost-a c c ide nt i nspe c tion re ve a l ed t h e b ra ke s we re

out of a lignm e nt— supports the ALJ’ s fin d ing tha t the v e h ic l e wa s not inspe c te d o n August 20 a

nd wa s pla c e d into se rvic e with a de fe c t. W e n e xt a ddre s s t h e v i o la tion of 2 9 C .F.R

. § 1926.651(j)(2). Tha t provision

re quire s a ll s poil— i.e ., de b ris— to be ke pt a t le a st two fe e t f rom the e dge of a n
e xc a va t ion. The ALJ c re dite d Howe ll’ s te s ti m o n y t ha t h e obse rve d the spoil pile wi t h i n i nc he s of the e x c a va tion on August 25, 2009. Te ic h e rt a rgue s tha t the pile

m ove d be twe e n the da te of the a c c ide nt (August 20) a nd the da te of the inspe c tion (August 25). Howe ll t e stifie d tha t he c onside re d this possibility

. B ut, a fte r c om pa ring the photogra

p hs ta ke n by the c orone r’ s o ffic e on the da te o f the a c c ide nt with his own photogra phs from the da te of the inspe c tion, Howe ll de te rm ine d tha t the pile ha d not

m ove d be twe e n the two da te s. The ALJ c o uld a c c e pt this vie w. Te ic he rt a rgue s in the a lte rna tive tha t e v e n i f the pile wa s c l ose r tha n two fe e t to the e xc a va tion, em

ploy e e s we re not e xpose d to the ha z a rd be c a use the y only

e nte re d t he e xc a v a tion through the be ll hole s. Se e Buffe ts, Inc

. , 21 B NA OSHC 1065 (No. 03-2097, 2005) (finding tha t “ t he Se c re ta

ry m ust show tha t e m

ploy e e s a re in fa c t

e xpose d to a ha z a rd” ) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d). The A LJ found tha t

e m ploy e e s we re e xpose d t o t he ha z a rd of fa l ling d e bris in othe r a re a s of the

e xc a va t ion. Spe c ific a lly , he p ointe d to the te stim o ny o f Te ic he rt e m ploy e e Se a n

4Ke nne dy , who te stifie d tha t e m ploy e e s work in the a re a s be twe e n t he be ll hole s f

o r
va rious re a s ons— inc luding to se t a line pin, a nd to put sa n d on t op of the pipe

. Thus,

e m ploy e e s we re e xpose d to the ha z a rds c re at ed by t h e spoil pile on the e dge of the

e xc a va t ion. Fina lly , we a ddre ss the viola tion of 29 C .F.R

. § 1926.652 ( b ) f or fa ilure to

co m ply w ith the prote c tive sy ste m for the e xc a va tion, d e signe d by a re giste r ed profe s siona l e ngine e r (“ R PE pla n” ). Te ic he rt c l a im s it wa s n ot following the R PE pla n

a t the spe c ific portion of the e xc a va tion a

t issue , but ra the r wa s c om ply ing “ with the

re quire m e nts of the c ontrolling sa fe ty sta nda rds.” The ALJ c onside re d this a rgum e nt, but found tha t T e ic he rt ha d stipula te d tha t i t w a s following the R PE pla n, b y a gre e ing prior to tria l: “ Pursua

nt to 2 9 C .F.R

. § [1926.] 652(b) (4), R e sponde nt opte d to ha ve the prot ect ive sy ste m for the tre nc h de signe d by a re g iste re d profe ssiona l e ngine e r.” Te ic he rt m a k es n o ar gum e nt he re a s to w hy t he ALJ i m

prope rly re lie d on the stipula tion. B a se d on Howe ll’ s obse rva tion of t h e tre nc h, a nd on the photogra

phs of the
tre nc h, the ALJ found t

ha t the pile wa s c lose r t o the sloping sy ste m tha n pe rm itte d by the R PE pl an . E m

p l oy e e s we re e xpose d to the ha z a rd of fa lling spoil be c a use som e
e m ploy e e s worke d in the a

re a s be twe e n t

he bell hole s. This finding is supporte d by the re c ord a

nd re lie s on e vide n tia

ry findings tha

t we do not disturb.

5PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE W DE NIE D.

6