قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Entrepreneur on hook for fine after not responding to death

Entrepreneur on hook for fine after not responding to death



A judge with administrative law at the Work Environment Review Commission on Thursday denied a home supplier's request for relief after he failed to respond in a timely manner to a $ 138,118 quote from a workplace inspection following a fatal fall. failure to "exercise due diligence" "simply negligent." his worker in December 2019 fell about eight meters from the roof to the ground and was killed, according to documents in Labor Secretary against Elmer Julio Perez Mendez dba Julio Perez filed in Washington, DC

On June 2, OSHA issued a reference to an intentional violation of its fall protection standard and accused employees engaged in residential construction activities at least ix feet from the lower level were not protected by guardrail systems, safety nets, personal fall protection systems or alternative fall protection measures "at the time of the accident" and times before. OSHA also issued a grouped non-serious referral claiming that Perez failed to report a work-related death within eight hours of an employee's death following a work-related incident, and that Perez did not report a 24-hour work-related incident resulting in a hospital stay. for the employee who fell from the roof.

OSHA on June 2 sent the quote the next day, certified mail with return receipt to Mr. Perez home. Employers have 1

5 working days to dispute citations and failure to submit responses in a timely manner "results in the citation becoming a final order of the Commission through legislation", according to documents.

Mr. Perez, who submitted an answer more than six weeks later on July 15, partly claimed that he was not late in submitting an answer, as he was traveling by car to California when the quote arrived and the person who signed it was not an employee. but a "temporary householder". He did not return to his home until June 19.

"Basically, Perez claims that because of these circumstances he should not be held accountable for not knowing that he had important mail that required prompt action to protect his interests," the documents state.

The judge in the Administrative Court disagreed and wrote that “Perez should have had adequate mail handling procedures to ensure that important items were received. The secretary was not required to request the signature of a specific person on the Perez business site. It is also not the secretary's responsibility to identify the person who signed the return receipt.

Catalog


Source link