Court Opinion

ID: 9673034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:04:52.354005+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:19.873187
License: Public Domain

KALITOWSKI, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The issue before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Board was whether there was substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s determination that Carlton County had sufficient supervisory authority over the worksite to be reasonably expected to detect and abate the hazard. Rather than review the evidence, the review board erroneously reversed the Commissioner because the county was not the employer of the injured worker.
With regard to the issue before the review board, the evidence in the record established: (1) the county had specific contractual authority “to suspend the work either wholly or in part, due to the failure of the contractor to correct conditions unsafe for the workmen or the general public”; (2) the county exercised direct control over the contractor with respect to contractual requirements involving erosion at the construction site and proper signage for traffic control; (3) the county knew of four previous power line strikes at the site within an eight-day period and was asked by Minnesota Power to call a meeting with the general contractor, Minnesota Power and county representatives, but no meeting was scheduled; and (4) immediately after the accident at issue, the county convened a meeting with the contractor and Minnesota Power to identity the areas on the worksite that would pose a hazard with regard to overhead power lines and to discuss ways of abating the hazard.
Because there is substantial evidence to support the Commissioner’s determination regarding the county’s authority over the worksite, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Board was required to affirm the Commissioner.