🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
OSHRC ALJ decision Docket 99-1882 Decided July 20, 2000 Settled Judge Michael H. Schoenfeld

Mid City Motors

Settlement affirms four serious items with a $750 total penalty

Apply this to your situation

This order from 2000 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 2000
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 It binds the parties but is not binding precedent in other cases.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

OSHA inspected Mid City Motors and issued a citation alleging three serious violations with proposed penalties totaling $2,850. When the hearing opened, the parties reached an agreement resolving every issue. Their stipulation, incorporated into the order by reference, treated the third item as two sub-items and amended item 3a. The final order affirmed serious violations involving medical services and first aid, welding and cutting fire prevention, safety data sheets, and hazard-communication training. The settlement reduced the total civil penalty to $750. The official decision does not describe the underlying workplace conditions or reproduce the stipulation's detailed terms.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.151(b), § 1910.252(a)(3)(i), § 1910.1200(g)(8), and § 1910.1200(h)
  • Outcome: Settled. Items 1, 2, 3a as amended, and 3b were affirmed as serious, with a total penalty of $750.
  • Key point: An ALJ may incorporate an on-record settlement into the final order, including amended items and a reduced penalty, without separately restating every settlement term.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

                        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
            OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION



SECRETARY OF LABOR,                          :
       Complainant,                          :
               v.                            :        Docket No. 99-1882
MID CITY MOTORS,                             :
       Respondent.                           :
                                             :


APPEARANCES:          Michelle DeBaltzo, Esq.
                      Office of the Solicitor
                      United States Department of Labor
                             For Complainant

                      Edward S. Sowinski, Jr., Esq.
                      Youngstown, Ohio
                            For Respondent

BEFORE: MICHAEL H. SCHOENFELD,
          Administrative Law Judge



                                 DECISION AND ORDER


       This is a proceeding brought before the United States Occupational Safety and Health
Review Commission pursuant to § 10(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29
U.S.C. §§ 651-678.
       On or about July 22, 1999, through September 2, 1999, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration of the United States Department of Labor (OSHA) conducted an inspection of
Respondent's work site. As a result of that inspection a citation was issued to Respondent alleging
three serious violations of the Act. A total civil penalty of $2850 was proposed by OSHA.
       A hearing on the record in this matter opened on April 24, 2000, in Akron, Ohio. No
affected employees sought to exercise the right to party status. The parties were afforded an
opportunity to discuss settlement. They were successful in reaching an agreement as to all pending
issues in this matter.
         The accord reached and announced on the record has been memorialized in a stipulation
between the parties which is made part of the record and is incorporated, in its entirety, into this
Decision and Order.


                                         Conclusions of Law
         1. Respondent, Mid City Motors, engaged in a business affecting commerce and was an
employer within the meaning of § 3(5) of the Act. The Commission has jurisdiction of the parties
and the subject matter of this proceeding.
         2.   Respondent was in violation of 29 C.F.R. §§          1910.151(b), 1910.252(a)(3)(i),
1910.1200(g)(8) and 1910.1200(h).
         3. Each of the above violations was serious.
         4. A total civil penalty of $750 is appropriate.


                                              ORDER
         On the basis of the foregoing, it is ORDERED that;
         1. Items 1, 2, 3a, as amended, and 3b are AFFIRMED.
         2. A civil penalty of $750 is assessed.
       3. The terms of the stipulated settlement are incorporated, in their entirety, by reference in
this Order.



                                                         _____/s/____________________
                                                         Michael H. Schoenfeld
                                                         Judge, OSHRC

Dated:          6/19/00
                Washington, D.C.




                                                   -2-


Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 2000, 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.