Steven S. Moalemi, M.D., P.C., d/b/a Empire Physical Medicine and Pain Management

Plain-English summary

OSHA cited a medical practice for three serious violations and proposed $7,392 in penalties. An administrative law judge dismissed the employer's contest after it missed four telephone conferences and did not respond to an order to show cause. The Commission found a discrepancy between the employer's correct ZIP code and the ZIP code used to mail the scheduling and show-cause orders, making it unclear whether the employer received them. The employer also stated that it believed it had reached an agreement with OSHA and wanted to finalize the settlement. Because the record did not establish that default dismissal was warranted, the Commission set aside the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): The decision identifies only standards in 29 C.F.R. Part 1910, without listing the individual standards.
• Outcome: The default dismissal was set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
• Key point: Default was not supported where an address discrepancy left receipt of key orders uncertain and the employer sought to complete a settlement.

Full text (OSHRC public release)


STEVEN S. MOALEMI, M.D., P.C., d/b/a Empire Physical Medicine and Pain Management, OSHRC DOCKET No. 19-0142

United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120 20 th
Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

Washington, DC 20036-3457

SECRETARY OF LABOR ,

V.

STEVEN S. MOALEMI, M.D., P.C., d/b/a, EMPIRE PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND PAIN MANAGEMENT

Respondent.

OSHRC Docket No. 19-0142

APPEARANCES :

Jessica L. Cole , Attorney ; Heather R. Phillips , Counsel for
Appellate Litigation ;
Charles F. James, Counsel for Appellate Litigation; Edmund C. Baird, Associate Solicitor of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health; Kate
O’Scannlain , Solicitor of Labor;
U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington ,
DC

For the Complainant

Steven S.
Moalemi ,
M.D.,
New York ,
NY

For the Respondent , Pro Se

REMAND ORDER

Before: SULLIVAN , Chairman; ATTWOOD and
LAIHOW , Commissioners.

BY THE COMMISSION:

On January 2, 2019, the Occupational Sa fety and Health Administration issued a
c itation to Steven S.
Moalemi , M.D., P.C. ,
alleging three serious violations of OSHA standards and proposing a total penalty of $7,392. On August
2 7, 2019, Administrative Law Judge William
S.
Coleman issued an Order of Dismissal declaring the Respondent , appearing pro se,
to be in default ,
dismissing
his
Notice of Contest , and affirming the citation and total proposed penalty . For the reasons discussed below, we set aside the judge’s
order
and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion .

The judge
based his
dismissal
order
on Respondent’s failure to
appear
for
four
mandatory
prehearing
telephone conferences and to respond to an order to show cause why
he
should not be
declared in default. 1
See
29 C.F.R. §   2200.101(a) ( “When any party has failed to plead or otherwise proceed as provided by these rules or as required by the Commission or the Judge, the party may be declared to be in default . . . after having been afforded an opportunity to show cause why the party should not be declared to be in default,” and “the Commission or the Judge, in their discretion, may enter a decision against the defaulting party
. . .
. ” ).
Neither
the Secretary nor the Respondent
appeared for the first two telephone conferences, s cheduled
by the judge
for
April 11, 2019
and
May 2, 2019. 2
On a
third telephone conference
scheduled
for May 28, 2019 , t he Secretary
appeared , but Respondent
did not . The
next day, the
judge issued an order directing Respondent to show cause
by June 18, 2019 ,
why the citation
items
and proposed penalties should not be affirmed due to his failure to follow Commission Rules and parti ci pate in the proceedings . In the show - cause order, the judge
also schedul ed
a fourth
telephone conference
for June 27, 2019.
T his order was sent
to
Respondent
in two mailings—one by first-class mail and one by certified mail with return receipt requested . T he return receipt card was returned with a signature
(which is illegible)
indicating
the order
had been delivered on June 3, 2019.
After Respondent failed to respond to the
show - cause
order and
failed
to
appear for
the
fourth
telephone conference,
the judge issued
the
dismissal order , which
was docketed
with
the Commission on
August 28, 2019 .

In a letter
received
by the Commission on September 23, 2019, Respondent
states
that
he “would like to petition for
the .  . .  case
to
be re-opened , ”
claim ing
that
he
received the judge’s decision but
“did not receive the order to show cause . ”

Respondent
also
asserts
that he
had
“worked out an agreement
with  .  . .  OSHA”
and
“was under the impression that what we had agreed to was final . ”

Respondent
requests that the Commission
“ [p] lease allow
[the parties]
to continue with what we had agreed to . ”

Upon review of the
case
record
in light of
Respondent’s claim
that he did not receive the show-cause order ,
there appears to be a zip code discrepancy in
Respondent’s
mailing
address . T he letterhead o n
Respondent’s letter
to the Commission
shows
a
zip code
of
10036 ,
which is also the zip code listed for the “Inspection Site” on the citation.

Respondent’s mailing address on the citation , however,
shows
10033 as the zip code,
which
is
the zip code
the judge
used
to
send
Respondent
the
three
telephone conference
scheduling orders a s well as
the
order to show cause . 3

Although we do not fault the judge
for using
the address the Secretary provided
in the citation ,
given
Respondent’s claim that he did not receive the show - cause order
and the address discrepancy ,
it is unclear whether
Respondent receive d
any of
the
judge’s
order s . T herefore, the
present
record
is
insufficient to establish that dismissal was warranted .

See Waterford Aluminum Co. , 23 BNA OSHC 1438 , 1439
(No. 10-1163, 2011) (remanding where “the record [is] insufficient to establish contumacy where it is unclear whether the judge’s show cause order was ever received by [the
pro se
employer]”) . In addition,
it is evident from the record that
the parties
had
engaged in settlement negotiations
and according to
Respondent ’s letter, reached an agreement that Respondent
is
willing to finalize .
 See
McQueary
Indus., Inc. , 22 BNA OSHC 1809 , 1810
(No. 08-1932, 2009) (remanding where the respondent “provided a reason for its failure to respond to the show-cause order and has expressed its desire to settle the case”) ;
see also
29 C.F.R. §   2200.100(a) (“Settlement is permitted and encouraged by the Commission at any stage of the proceedings.”) .

Accordingly, w e
set aside the judge’s decision
and remand
for
further proceedings.
See
29 C.F.R. §   2200.101(b) (“For reasons deemed sufficient by the Commission or
the
Judge and upon
motion  .  . .  expeditiously made, the Commission or
the
Judge may set aside a sanction imposed under paragraph (a) of this section.”).

SO
ORDERED.

/s/ ______

James J. Sullivan, Jr.

Chairman      

/s/ ______

Cynthia L. Attwood

Commissioner

/s/ ______

Amanda Wood Laihow

Dated:    January 24, 2020             Commissioner

United States of America

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor

Washington, DC 20036-3419

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

IN SIMPLIFIED PROCEEDINGS PER

29 C.F.R. § 2200.203

Complainant,

v.

OSHRC DOCKET No.
19-0142

STEVEN S. MOALEMI, M.D., P.C., d/b/a Empire Physical Medicine and Pain Management,

Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Commission Rule 101(a), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.101(a), the Respondent,
Steven S. Moalemi, M.D., P.C.,
d/b/a Empire Physical Medicine and Pain Management,
is declared to be in default and its notice of contest is dismissed, as described below.

Background

On or around November 14, 2018, an official from the Manhattan, New York, area office of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) conducted an inspection of a worksite of the Respondent at 7 West 45th Street, Ninth Floor, New York, New York 10033 (OSHA Inspection No. 1360484). As a result of that inspection, on January 2, 2019, OSHA issued a three-item serious Citation and Notification of Penalty (Citation) alleging that on or about November 14, 2018, the Respondent had violated several standards codified at 29 C.F.R. Part 1910 and proposing penalties totaling of $7,392. The Citation indicates that all three alleged violative conditions were corrected during the inspection.

The Respondent received the Citation and then, by an email from by Dr. Steven Moalemi sent to the OSHA area office, submitted a written notice of intention to contest, in which he stated that “I am contesting the penalties” for the inspection. 4 OSHA then duly forwarded the notice of contest to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (Commission). See
29 C.F.R. §§ 1903.17(a) & 2200.33. On February 4, 2019, the Commission’s Executive Secretary issued a “Notice of Docketing and Instructions to the Employer.” On March 7, 2019, the Commission’s Chief Judge designated the matter to be resolved under the Commission’s rules for Simplified Proceedings, 29 C.F.R. Part 2200, Subpart M, and assigned the matter to the undersigned Commission Judge for disposition.

On March 13, 2019, the undersigned issued a notice and scheduling order that included notice of a prehearing telephone conference to be conducted on April 11, 2019. Neither the Respondent nor the Secretary called in for that telephone conference, so another telephone conference was scheduled for May 2, 2019. Neither party called in for that telephone conference either, so the undersigned scheduled another telephone conference for May 28, 2019. An attorney for the Secretary called in for that telephone conference, but the Respondent did not call in for that telephone conference.

On May 29, 2019, the undersigned issued an order to show cause to the Respondent directing the Respondent to file a written response to show cause no later than June 18, 2019, showing why the Respondent should not be declared in default and why the citations and proposed penalties should not be affirmed due to the Respondent’s failure to proceed as provided by the Commission’s rules of procedure. The order to show cause also scheduled a telephone conference for June 27, 2019, to address
the Respondent’s anticipated response to the order to show cause. The order to show cause closed with the following admonition in distinctive typeface as follows:

Compliance. THE RESPONDENT’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO THIS ORDER OR FAILURE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON JUNE 27, 2019, WILL LIKELY RESULT IN THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS BEING AFFIRMED AND THE PROPOSED PENALTIES OF $7392 BEING ASSESSED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT WITHOUT A TRIAL.

The order to show cause was sent to the Respondent in two separate mailings—one by certified mail, return receipt requested, and the other by regular first-class mail. The certified mailing was delivered to the Respondent on June 3, 2019, as reflected by a signature on the return receipt card for the mailing bearing that date. The mailing that was sent by regular first-class mail was not returned un-delivered.

The Respondent did not file a written response to the order to show cause, and no one representing the Respondent called in for the telephone conference on June 27, 2019.

Discussion

Commission Rule 101(a), codified at 29 C.F.R. § 2200.101(a), provides in part as follows:

Sanctions. When any party has failed to plead or otherwise proceed as provided by these rules or as required by the . . . Judge, the party may be declared to be in default . . . on the initiative of the . . . Judge, after having been afforded an opportunity to show cause why the party should not be declared to be in default . . . . Thereafter, the . . . Judge, in [his] discretion, may enter a decision against the defaulting party
. . . .

The Commission “follows the policy in law that favors deciding cases on their merits.” D HL
Express ,
Inc. , 21 BNA OSHC 2179, 2180 (No. 07-0478, 2007). Rule 101(a) nevertheless permits the harsh sanction of dismissal of a notice of contest
where
a
party
has displayed
a “pattern of disregard”
of
Commission proceedings.

Philadelphia Constr .
Equip .,
Inc. , 16 BNA OSHC 1128, 1131
(No. 92-899, 1993);
Architectural Glass & Metal Co. , 19 BNA OSHC 1546, 1547 (No. 00-0389, 2001);
see also
Commission Rule
101(b), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.101(b) (a default sanction may be set aside “[f]or reasons deemed sufficient by the Commission or
Judge
and upon motion expeditiously made”).

The Respondent’s failure to participate in four consecutive telephone conferences and to file a response to the order to show cause as described above displays a pattern of disregard of Commission proceedings that warrants an order of default. The Respondent has been provided multiple opportunities to participate in necessary Commission proceedings that are preliminary to the conduct of an evidentiary hearing that the Respondent had sought by virtue of contesting the proposed penalties, and the Respondent has not participated in any. The most recent Order to Show Cause made it abundantly clear that if the Respondent continued to fail to participate by failing to file a response to the order and failing to participate in the telephone conference on June 27, 2019, that the undersigned would likely issue an order of default that would have the effect of affirming the original penalties as proposed.

The Respondent has not participated in Commission proceedings and has not responded to the orders of the undersigned. It is impossible to move this case forward to hearing in view of the Respondent’s continuing failure to participate as directed. There is no reasonable basis to conclude that if a hearing were to be scheduled that the Respondent would participate in any future prehearing proceedings or would appear at a hearing to defend the matter. Cf.
Commission Rule 64(a), 29 C.F.R. § 2200.64(a) (providing that “[t]he failure of a party to appear at a hearing may result in a decision against that party”). The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the Respondent’s continuing failure to participate is that the Respondent has willfully defaulted and abandoned its case before the Commission.

The Respondent’s failure to participate is prejudicial to the administration of justice and to the Secretary’s enforcement responsibilities under the OSH Act. The Commission cannot countenance the prejudicial effects of the Respondent’s continuing failure to participate. Dismissal of the Respondent’s
notice of contest is the necessary and appropriate remedy to cure the prejudicial impact of the Respondent’s failure to participate.

O RDER

For these reasons, the Respondent is determined to be in DEFAULT, its notice of contest is DISMISSED. The Citation issued to the Respondent on January 2, 2019 as a result of Inspection Number 1360484 and alleging certain violations of standards set forth in 29 C.F.R. Part 1910 with proposed penalties totaling $7,392 is AFFIRMED in its entirety.

SO
ORDERED.

_ /s/ _____

WILLIAM S. COLEMAN

Administrative Law Judge

DATED: August 27, 2019

"

1
This case was assigned to Simplified Proceeding s. See
29 C.F.R. Pt. 2200, subpt. M.

2
The judge
noted in his
scheduling order for the May
2
telephone conference that
the Secretary had informed him that
the parties
were
“exploring
potential s ettlement .” After both parties failed to participate in the May 2 conference (following their failure to participate in the previous conference scheduled for April 11), the judge admonished them in his third scheduling order: “ The parties are reminded that even though they may be engaged in settlement discussions, the participation of all parties in noticed telephone conferences is MANDATORY .” (italics and capitalization in original.) We further remind the Secretary that it is his burden to prosecute his case and his participation in any mandatory conference scheduled by a Commission judge is particularly important in a Simplified Proceedings case (where there are no pleadings) involving a pro se employer. See
29 C.F.R. § 2200.207 (regarding the use of pre-hearing conferences in Simplified Proceedings).

3
The record shows that the judge’s dismissal order—the only order Respondent claims to have received—was sent to both parties “via email on August 27, 2019.” As for the
citation, it is not apparent from Respondent’s notice of contest
that
it was received. In his email to OSHA, titled “Contest of penalties,” Respondent states: “I am writing this email pursuant to our conversation today.” The email does not
reflect Respondent’s mailing address.
We note that according to the citation ,
all three alleged violations were corrected during the inspection.

4
In the email ,
Dr. Moalemi also promised to send to the area office copies of his tax returns for the years 2015, 2016, and 2017 as well as bank statements from the last twelve months. The record before the Commission does not indicate whether these materials were provided to the Area Office, which would have been done apparently
in an effort to
negotiate down with the Area Office the amount of the proposed penalties.