Opinion ID: 386903
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: laying the foundation: background facts

Text: 2 During 1975, Brown & Root was engaged in a three year construction project of the north yard of the Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company in Newport News, Virginia. On May 14, 1975, Brown & Root's general foreman, Earl Joyner, was struck and killed by a caterpillar scraper. At the time of the accident, the scraper was being backed into a reclamation pit from which Joyner was directing the earthmoving operation. 3 As a result of the tragedy, two Occupational and Safety compliance officers conducted an investigation of the Brown & Root construction site, and issued a citation. The company contested the citation and an administrative hearing was conducted. The administrative law judge (ALJ) hearing the case concluded that Brown & Root had committed a serious and willful violation of safety regulation 29 CFR 1962.602(a)(9)(ii) 1 by permitting the scraper involved in the accident to be operated in reverse without the use of a reverse signal alarm or employee signals. 4 On appeal from the decision of the ALJ, OSHRC concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish a violation in connection with the fatal accident of May 14. However, OSHRC also found that Brown & Root had violated the same standard several times prior to May 14, and that the issue of their compliance with the standard during times prior to the accident had been fully and fairly litigated. Thus, OSHRC amended the pleadings to allege a violation of the safety standard on or before May 14. Based on the amended pleadings, OSHRC affirmed the finding of a serious and willful violation. 5 Brown & Root has raised three issues on appeal in this Court. The company first argues that the amendment of the original complaint was improper; therefore, the OSHRC conclusion that there was insufficient evidence on which to find a violation based on the original complaint should be dispositive of the case. Second, Brown & Root claims that even assuming the amended complaint to be proper, the OSHRC erred in finding a violation on or before May 14. Finally, Brown & Root suggests that there is insufficient evidence to find that the alleged violation was committed willfully. 6