Posts Tagged ‘fall protection’

A New Era for OSHA

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 2/29/2016

Included in the budget signed by Congress and the President on November 2, 2015 was an increase in OSHA penalties. This is the first time OSHA penalties have increased in 25 years.

OSHA has yet to issue its interim final rule, clarifying the fine increases; however, it is anticipated that the standard fines will increase approximately 80 percent. Thus, the new fine schedule is anticipated to change as follows:

  • “Serious violations” and “other than serious violations” previously were a maximum fine of $7,000; they are likely to increase to a maximum fine of $12,600.
  • “Willful violations” and “repeat” violations previously were a maximum fine of $70,000; they are likely to increase to a maximum fine of $126,000.

These new fine amounts will go into effect once OSHA issues a final interim rule, confirming the new fine amounts. The rule will go into effect by August 1, 2016, at the latest.

In the meantime, OSHA has continued to vigilantly enforce the standards. This month, a Lancaster County residential homebuilder was cited $64,400 in proposed penalties. The majority of the fines arose from two willful citations. One willful citation for $28,000 arose from three separate uses of forklifts to create a scaffold without proper fall protection. A second willful citation of $28,000 was for employees installing roofing shingles without the proper use of fall protection.

Certain common sense techniques are the best protection from OSHA citations. Emphasize safety by routinely training employees; create a safety program, and hire a safety director, if within the budget; and always prioritize safety on the jobsite. Also ensure that employees are familiar with the most common safety issues and proper protection. In 2015, the top 3 OSHA (construction) standards frequently cited for penalties were as follows:

  1. Fall Protection.
  2. Scaffolding.
  3. Ladders.

When creating a safety program, it is best to rely upon specialized consultants. When resolving or defending OSHA citations, it is best to seek legal advice. Safety has always been a priority for construction companies; now, with the increase in fines, properly handling OSHA citations is too.

What’s Happening Now . . .

       12.3%

  • 2015 Increase in private construction spending.
  • 2015 had private construction spending of $806.1 billion.
  • 2014 had private construction spending of 717.7 billion.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau News, December 2015 Construction at $1,116.6 billion annual rate, US Dept. of Commerce (Feb. 1, 2016).

 

Newsletter written by Jeffrey C. Bright, Esq. , an attorney licensed in Pennsylvania and Maryland. For more information, contact an attorney at Harmon & Davies, P.C.

Employment          Construction           Business

2306 Columbia Ave. | Lancaster, PA 17603

T: 717.291.2236 | www.h-dlaw.com

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in OSHA | No Comments »

Pennsylvania Painting Contractor Faces Nearly Half a Million Dollars in Proposed OSHA Penalties

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 2/4/2013

A Canonsburg, Pennsylvania based painting contractor faces nearly half a million dollars in proposed OSHA penalties for alleged safety violations at three of its projects.  The large citation includes 38 alleged violations, including 14 willful and 11 repeat violations at worksites in Slatington, Harrisburg, and Slatedale, Pennsylvania.

The alleged willful violations include failing to properly protect workers from lead exposure and failing to provide fall protection.  The repeat violations relate to employee exposure to lead above the permissible exposure level, a lack of warning signs posted in lead work areas, failure to ensure workers showered at the end of each shift, and failure to provide medical evaluations and fit tests for respirator users.

Additional alleged violations include:

  1. Failure to notify employees of the results of lead monitoring;
  2. Failure to provide employees with initial medical surveillance for lead;
  3. Failure to provide periodic blood tests for employees exposed to lead;
  4. Allowing workers to have or consume food in an area where lead exposure was above the permissible level;
  5. Failing to notify employees in writing of blood lead test results within five days;
  6. A lack of guarding on electrical wiring to prevent accidental contact; and
  7. Failure to ensure that workers wore respirators while blasting with glass media or when exposed to lead in excess of permissible limits.

 

The cited company has been under OSHA’s scrutiny for the past several years, having been inspected five times in the past five years with four of the inspections resulting in citations for serious violations.  As a result of the painting contractor’s alleged refusal to correct hazards, it has been placed on OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program, which requires targeted follow-up inspections to ensure compliance with OSHA regulations.

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

 

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in OSHA, Safety | No Comments »

Contractors, Would a Jury View You As Ignoring Safety?

by HDlawblog Posted: Monday, 11/26/2012

In what is the second largest verdict of its kind nationally, an Illinois jury in the matter of Bayer v. Punduit Corp. awarded an ironworker $64 million after it found a general contractor to be 80% responsible for the spinal and brain injuries that the ironworker sustained after he fell from a steel beam.  The other 20% of the responsibility for the accident was attributed to the injured worker.

The attorneys for the injured worker argued that the general contractor maintained an unsafe jobsite in violation of OSHA regulations, ANSI safety standards, and internal safety rules.  During trial, the injured worker’s attorneys presented strong evidence that the general contractor ignored state and federal construction safety standards.  As a result, the jury agreed that the general contractor had failed to develop and implement the required jobsite safety plan and therefore was liable for the worker’s injuries.

The attorneys for the general contractor intend to appeal the jury verdict on the grounds that the worker was largely, if not completely, responsible for his injuries because he breached fall protection protocols by unhooking his lanyard and climbing out of a man lift basket onto the structural steel from which he fell.

Lesson for Contractors:  Regardless of whether the general contractor appeals, an important lesson for contractors to think about is how a jury may view your implementation and enforcement of safety standards.  In the Bayer case there was strong evidence that the general contractor ignored state and federal construction safety standards.  Could the same be said about your company?  Of course, the foremost reason for complying with safety standards is to protect your workers, but on a secondary level, contractors should be aware that if they don’t implement and enforce strong safety measures, such a failure is unlikely to sit well with jurors.

This article is authored by attorney Shannon O. Young and is intended for educational purposes and to give you general information and a general understanding of the law only, not to provide specific legal advice. Any particular questions should be directed to your legal counsel or, if you do not have one, please feel free to contact us.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Construction, OSHA, Safety | No Comments »