🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 01-1587 Decided May 27, 2004 Remanded

S.A. Storer and Sons, Co.

Court-directed scaffold remand ordered

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2004, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2004
The OSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official OSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official OSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The D.C. Circuit vacated part of the Commission's earlier order concerning scaffold fall protection at two work areas. The court affirmed the violation at the materials-staging area but vacated it at the window-opening area. The Commission remanded the case to the ALJ with directions to enter those results and reassess the penalty for the remaining violation on an expedited basis.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1926.451(g)(1)
  • Outcome: Remanded to vacate the window-opening allegation, affirm the materials-staging allegation, and reassess the penalty.
  • Key point: On remand from a court of appeals, the Commission directed the ALJ to implement the court's location-specific ruling and determine the penalty for the surviving scaffold violation.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

United State of America

Walter, J. David
Normal
Walter, J. David
2
1
2018-08-03T14:38:00Z
2018-08-03T14:38:00Z
1
228
1302
10
3
1527
16.00

Clean
Clean
false

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE


SECRETARY OF LABOR, ������������������ :

����������������������������������������������������������� :

� ���������� ����������������������� Complainant, : ���������������������

  • v - ���� ����������������������� : ���������������������������������� OSHRC Docket
    No. 01-1587

:

S.A.
STORER AND SONS, CO., ������� :

����������������������������������� Respondent. � :

______:

REMAND ORDER

On
March 19, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit issued a decision and order vacating the order of the Review Commission
dated September 5, 2002. The court granted in part Respondent�s petition for
review with respect to an alleged violation of 29 C.F.R. �1926.451(g)(1). The
court affirmed the decision of Commission Judge Stephen J. Simko
as to the materials staging area of the scaffold and vacated the decision as to
the window opening area. The court remanded the matter to the Commission for
further proceedings consistent with its decision.

We in turn remand this matter to
Judge Simko . On remand, the judge is directed to
vacate the citation in so far as it alleges a violation with
regard to the window opening area, affirm the citation as to the
materials staging area, and reassess an appropriate penalty for that portion of
the citation which is affirmed.

The ALJ is directed to issue his
decision and order on an expedited basis pursuant to Commission Rule 103, 29 C.F.R.
�2200.103.

Date: __May 27, 2004__ ����������������������������������� /s/_____
�

W.
Scott Railton

Chairman

/s/________

James
M. Stephens

Commissioner ����������

/s/_________
�

Thomasina
V. Rogers

Commissioner ����������������������������������������������

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 2004. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.