🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
Ezel / Agency Decisions / 02-1683-alj
OSHRC ALJ decision Docket 02-1683 Decided February 27, 2003 Procedural Judge G. Marvin Bober

Parsons Contracting

Default entered after repeated missed conferences

Apply this to your situation

This order from 2003 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 2003
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 It binds the parties but is not binding precedent in other cases.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

Parsons Contracting missed a scheduled pretrial telephone conference but initially avoided default by explaining confusion about whether it would occur. The company then agreed to a second conference, failed to appear again without notice, and did not respond to the judge's order to show cause. The judge entered default judgment and affirmed the May 20, 2002 citation and notification of penalty in their entirety.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): No specific OSHA standard number is identified in the default order.
  • Outcome: Default judgment was entered and the citation and penalty were affirmed in full.
  • Key point: Repeated failure to attend agreed pretrial conferences, followed by no response to a show-cause order, supports default judgment.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
Complainant,
v. Docket No. 02-1683
PARSONS CONTRACTING, INC.,
Respondent.

             DECISION AND ORDER ON DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

    On October 24 and November 6, 2002, orders notified all parties including the Respondent,

Parsons Contracting, Inc., of a pre-trial telephone conference to be held on Tuesday, November 12,
2002 at 10:15 a.m. EST. The Respondent failed in his responsibility to be available for the pre-trial
telephone conference.
Thereafter, the undersigned issued an order requiring the Respondent to provide in affidavit
form a statement as to reason(s) the Respondent should not be declared to be in default and the
petition for modification of the abatement date be granted.
On November 18, 2002, the Respondent filed his affidavit stating that there was some
confusion as to the posture of this proceeding, and it was unclear if the telephone conference would
be held. As the Respondent provided the undersigned with good cause, the Respondent was not
found to be in default.
On December 19, 2002, with the concurrence of counsel for the Complainant and the
Respondent, a telephone pre-trial conference was scheduled for January 13, 2003 at 9:00 a.m.EST.
The Respondent was unavailable for the pre-trial telephone conference, and the Respondent failed
to notify the undersigned of its unavailability. Thus, the Respondent failed in its responsibility to be
available for the pre-trial telephone conference.
On January 14, 2003, the undersigned issued his Order To Show Cause. The Order
required the Respondent to provide the Court in affidavit form a statement as to reason(s) the
Respondent should not be found in default.
The Respondent did not file a reply.

                         DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION


   The Respondent has failed to comply with the Order To Show Cause.
   IT IS ORDERED that Default Judgement is GRANTED.
   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Citation and Notification of Penalty

issued M ay 20, 2002, is affirmed in its entirety.

Dated: January 27, 2003 /s/
Washington, D.C. G. Marvin Bober
Administrative Law Judge

                                          -2-

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 2003, 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.