Opinion ID: 186188
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Serious Violation

Text: 27 Finally, Lill asserts the ALJ lacked authority to amend the citation to allege a serious rather than willful violation. Lill argues that only the Secretary may amend her citation and that the ALJ was required to affirm the citation as either willful or, if he found insufficient intent, as other-than-serious. 3 The Commission has developed the following policy: 28 Where the Secretary alleges that a violation is willful but fails to prove willfulness, an other-than-serious violation may be affirmed. A serious violation will not be found unless the parties have expressly or impliedly consented to try the issue of whether the violation was serious. 29 Atlas Indus. Painters, 1991 WL 165881, at  (OSHRC) (citing Crawford Constr. Co., 1982 WL 22598, at  (OSHRC), rev'd on other ground, 718 F.2d 1098 (6th Cir. 1983)); see also Keco Indus., 1987 WL 89096, at 11 (OSHRC); Toler Excavating Co., 1975 WL 5016, at  (OSHRC). Lill contends that because the Secretary alleged and the parties tried only a willful violation, the ALJ was required to affirm it as other-than-serious. Lill's position overlooks that the Secretary in fact alleged a serious as well as a willful violation. Although the citation identified the violation simply as willful, the Secretary's complaint alleged it is a Willful violation ... or the violation is a Serious violation within the meaning of sections 17(b) and 17(k) of the Act in that there was substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from the conditions that existed and [Lill] knew, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known of the presence of the violation. JA 334-35. Lill should not have been surprised, therefore, that the ALJ found the violation to be serious in accordance with the Secretary's complaint. 4 30 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 31 Denied.