Opinion ID: 2571502
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: [¶2] Three Sons states the issues as follows: A. The District Court erred in finding that the misallocation of the burden of proof by the agency and the Hearing Officer was harmless error. B. The District Court erred in finding that the agency, even under an improper allocation of the burden of proof, [met] it[]s burden without any evidence of foreseeability or preventability of the misconduct in question being offered. C. The District Court erred in upholding the rejection of the employee misconduct defense and holding the employer to a strict liability standard. The Commission re-states the issues as follows: I. Whether the Order Upholding Citation, which upheld the determination that Three Sons, LLC committed a willful violation of OSHA regulation 1926.652(a)(1) requiring excavation cave-in protection, is supported by substantial evidence, is not arbitrary or capricious, and is in accordance with law? II. Whether substantial evidence supports the Order Upholding Citation, which upheld the determination that Three Sons, LLC failed to carry its burden of proof with regard to its attempted defense of employee misconduct?