Opinion ID: 3168115
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ALJ and OSHRC Proceedings

Text: After a hearing, the taking of trial depositions, and the submission of posthearing briefs, Administrative Law Judge Sharon D. Calhoun issued a Decision and Order on July 22, 2013. Sec’y of Labor v. Quinlan Enters., OSHRC Docket No. 12-1698, 2013 WL 5505283, at –16 (Occupational Safety Health Review Comm’n July 22, 2013). The ALJ Order affirmed Item 1 and 3 of the Citation and assessed a total penalty of $7,200.00. Quinlan filed a petition for discretionary review with the Commission on August 12, 2013, arguing that it was not liable for any violation because Pacheco and Vargas were not Quinlan’s employees at the time of exposure. After the ALJ Order was issued, this Court decided ComTran, in which we held that “the Secretary does not carry her burden and establish a prima facie case with respect to employer knowledge merely by demonstrating that a 2 29 C.F.R. §1926.501(b)(1) provides: “Unprotected sides and edges. Each employee on a walking/working surface (horizontal and vertical surface) with an unprotected side or edge which is 6 feet (1.8 m) or more above a lower level shall be protected from falling by the use of guardrail systems, safety net systems, or personal fall arrest systems.” 3 29 C.F.R. §1926.1053(b)(4) provides: “Ladders shall be used only for the purpose for which they were designed.” 4 Case: 14-12347 Date Filed: 01/08/2016 Page: 5 of 20 supervisor engaged in misconduct.” 722 F.3d at 1316. The ALJ Decision and Order was then directed for review before the Commission and the Commission issued a Remand Order to the ALJ to consider Quinlan’s arguments in his petition for discretionary review as well as the applicability of this Court’s intervening decision in ComTran to the two violations. Quinlan Enters., 24 BNA OSHC 1154 (No. 12-1698, 2013) (remand order). On remand from the Commission, Judge Calhoun made extensive findings and concluded that Pacheco and Vargas were workers employed by Quinlan at the time of the violations. Quinlan Enters., 24 BNA OSHC 2185, 2186–91 (No. 121698, 2014) (decision and order on remand) (ALJ). The ALJ also distinguished ComTran, stating that ComTran “only applies to scenarios where the supervisor is acting alone” and not to situations where the supervisor has knowledge of misconduct by his subordinates. Id. at 2192. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that ComTran did not alter the dispositions of the affirmed violations. Id. at 2193. Quinlan again sought discretionary review from the Commission but was denied. Thus, Judge Calhoun’s decision became a final order of the Commission on March 31, 2014. This petition for review followed.