Opinion ID: 2542051
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: safety violation.

Text: Verdon complains that the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the Board's decision to remand for additional findings with respect to the alleged safety violation. Verdon bases its argument that the claimant failed to present any credible proof that his injury occurred due to a failure to comply with a specific state or federal statute or regulation, on the ALJ's finding that the claimant's safety expert, Ralph Wirth, did not know sufficient facts to render an opinion concerning whether a safety violation occurred. Verdon asserts that by affirming the Board, the court impliedly supports the Board's blatant attempt to substitute its opinion as to the quality and credibility of the claimant's testimony and the inconsistent testimonies contained in Martinez's two depositions. We disagree. The claimant alleged that Verdon violated a safety regulation by failing to protect him from falling through the hole in the floor. He submitted a report from Ralph Wirth, which included a copy of the Kentucky Occupational Safety and Health (Kentucky OSH) Program Instruction 01-2005 (February 16, 2005), including Appendix A. The document states that a failure to comply with the fall protection measures stated therein shall be cited as a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1925.501(b)(13) as incorporated by 803 KAR 2:412. Wirth recommended in a report to the claimant's attorney that the Kentucky OSH office be contacted to determine that the regulation was current. Wirth testified when deposed in October 2007 that his report referred to 29 C.F.R. § 1925.502(a)(2) but that 29 C.F.R. § 1925.501(b)(13) applies directly in this case because it pertains to residential construction fall protection. He stated that Instruction 01-2005 became effective on February 16, 2005, a few months before the claimant's July 2005 accident. He also stated that he had checked with Mark Hughes, a safety supervisor with Kentucky OSH, since preparing his report and determined that the regulation remained unchanged at present except that the height requirement was increased from six feet to ten feet in 2006. The ALJ refused to certify Wirth as an expert concerning the alleged violation and rejected his testimony, convinced that he did not know sufficient facts or law to render an expert opinion. The ALJ then determined without further analysis that no violation applied to the claim. This appeal does not concern the Court of Appeals' decision to uphold the refusal to consider Wirth's testimony. At issue is whether the Court of Appeals acted properly by affirming the decision to remand the claim to analyze the remaining evidence under KRS 342.165(1) and to determine whether the claimant's accident resulted in any degree from Verdon's safety violation. The record contained evidence that Kentucky OSH regulations pertaining to residential construction imposed certain requirements concerning fall protection at the time of the claimant's injury. An ALJ is presumed to know the law with respect to safety violations and is charged with applying it properly to the facts as found. [29] KRS 342.165(1) does not require expert testimony to prove that the employer's violation of a known safety regulation helped to cause the accident in which its employee was injured. Employers are presumed to know what specific state and federal statutes and regulations govern their workplace; thus, an employer's violation of such a provision implies the intent to do so. [30] We find no error in the decision to remand this claim for further consideration of the alleged safety violation. The record indicates that nothing covered or barricaded the opening through which the claimant fell. Having failed to do so previously, the ALJ must analyze the evidence to determine what regulation governed the facts; whether the regulation required the employer to have some form of fall protection in place at the time of the claimant's accident; and, if so, whether the failure to have such protection helped to cause the claimant's accident. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. All sitting. All concur. SCOTT, J., concurs by separate opinion with respect to KRS 342.640(1). SCOTT, J., concurring: I concur with the majority because KRS 342.640(1) defines an employee as [e]very person, including a minor, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed. . . . Thus, any contrary result is a legislative matter, not a judicial one.