🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
Ezel / Agency Decisions / 02-0900-alj
OSHRC ALJ decision Docket 02-0900 Decided October 7, 2002 Procedural Judge Michael H. Schoenfeld

Atlantic Bowling Installation Service

Failure to answer show-cause order led to $1,500 penalty

Apply this to your situation

This order from 2002 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ezel answers your situation under the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2002
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.
Final order, not Commission precedent
This decision by an OSHRC Administrative Law Judge became a final order of the Commission because no Commissioner directed review (29 U.S.C. § 661(j)). It binds the parties but is not binding precedent in other cases. 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

Atlantic Bowling Installation Service did not respond to an August 2, 2002 order to show cause. The judge found that this failure alone justified dismissing the company's notice of contest. He affirmed both serious citation items and assessed a total penalty of $1,500. The decision does not identify the underlying standards.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): The decision does not identify the substantive standards in the citation.
  • Outcome: Notice of contest dismissed; two serious items affirmed and $1,500 assessed.
  • Key point: Ignoring an order to show cause can result in dismissal of the contest and affirmance of the citations.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
        OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v. Docket No. 02-0900
ATLANTIC BOWLING
INSTALLATION SERVICE,
Respondent.

                             DECISION AND ORDER


                                        DECISION

   Respondent’s failure to respond to, reply to, or in any way even attempt to comply with an

August 2, 2002, Order To Show Cause is, by itself, appropriate grounds upon which to dismiss the
notice of contest and affirm the citation and notification of proposed penalties issued to Respondent
on or about April 23, 2002. IT IS SO ORDERED.

               FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


   1. Respondent was, at all times pertinent hereto, an employer within the meaning of section

3(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U. S. C. § § 651 - 678 (1970).
2. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission has jurisdiction over the parties
and the subject matter.
3. Respondent was in violation of section 5(a)(2) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 in that it failed to comply with the standards as alleged in Citation 1, Items 1 and 2.
4. Each of the violations of the Act was serious.
5. A total civil penalty of $1,500.00 is appropriate.
ORDER

  1. Citation 1, Items 1 and 2, are AFFIRMED.
  2. A civil penalty of $ 1,500.00 is assessed.




                                                        /s/


                                                  Michael H. Schoenfeld
                                                  Judge, OSHRC

Dated: September 10, 2002
Washington, D.C.

                                          -2-

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 2002, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current OSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

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