Gomez v. Sanders Constructors, Inc.

CourtNorth Carolina Industrial Commission
DecidedAugust 15, 2006
DocketI.C. NO. 129434
StatusPublished

This text of Gomez v. Sanders Constructors, Inc. (Gomez v. Sanders Constructors, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering North Carolina Industrial Commission primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gomez v. Sanders Constructors, Inc., (N.C. Super. Ct. 2006).

Opinion

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission reviewed the prior Opinion and Award based upon the record of the proceedings before Deputy Commissioner Glenn and the briefs and oral arguments before the Full Commission. The appealing parties have shown good ground to reconsider the evidence in this matter. Having reconsidered the evidence, the Full Commission reverses the Deputy Commissioner's award of benefits and enters the following Opinion and Award.

* * * * * * * * * * *
The Full Commission finds as fact and concludes as matters of law the following, which were entered into by the parties at the hearing as:

STIPULATIONS
1. All parties are properly before the Industrial Commission and the Industrial Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and this claim. The parties are subject to and bound by the provisions of the North Carolina Workers' Compensation Act.

2. On January 29, 2001, plaintiffs' decedent Eleazar Juarez-Garcia was an employee of Sanders Constructors, Inc.

3. At all relevant times herein, Sanders Constructors was insured for workers' compensation purposes by CNA Insurance Company.

4. The deceased employee's average weekly wage was $415.95, which yields a compensation rate of $277.30 per week.

5. On January 29, 2001, the deceased employee sustained a compensable injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with Sanders Constructors.

6. As a result of his injuries in said accident, the deceased employee Eleazar Juarez-Garcia lost his life.

7. The parties entered into a Form 30 agreement for the payment of death benefits to the total dependents of Eleazar Juarez-Garcia. The agreement, which was approved by the Industrial Commission on or about November 14, 2002, expressly stated that it was without prejudice to the right of plaintiffs to request a hearing to determine whether defendants should be required to pay a penalty of TEN PERCENT (10%) of the amount of compensation due under the Form 30 agreement for willful violation of OSHA safety regulations and statutes that were alleged to be proximate causes of the fatal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the deceased employee's employment that is the subject of this claim.

8. The issue to be determined from this hearing is as follows:

Should the defendants be required to pay a penalty of TEN PERCENT (10%) pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-12 for willful violations of OSHA safety regulations and statutes that were proximate causes of the incident that is the subject of this claim?

* * * * * * * * * * *

Based upon all the competent evidence of record and reasonable inferences flowing therefrom, the Full Commission makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The deceased employee, Eleazar Juarez-Garcia, was born on February 22, 1974, and on the date of his death he was 26 years old.

2. On January 29, 2001, the deceased employee suffered a fatal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment with Sanders Constructors as the result of the collapse of the wall of a trench in which he was working on that date.

3. The North Carolina Department of Labor through its Occupational Safety Health Division (hereinafter "the Division") caused an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the incident that gives rise to this claim to be performed by its agent Rebecca Israel.

4. As part of her investigation on the date of the incident, Ms. Israel took statements of all employees of Sanders Constructors who were present at the site of the incident that gives rise to this claim.

5. As part of her investigation, Ms. Israel determined that spoil piles of soil from the trench that Sanders Constructors was digging on January 29, 2001, were placed less than two (2) feet from the edge of the trench and such placement was a violation of OSHA regulations found at 29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(j)(2). However, inasmuch as the ditch cave-in came from loose soil on the opposite side of the trench from the spoil piles, likely as a result of previous placement of underground utilities there, this safety violation was not a proximate cause of death.

6. As part of her investigation, Ms. Israel determined that the portion of the trench in which the deceased employee was working at the time of his death lacked an "adequate protective system" against the hazards of trench wall cave-ins. However, based upon the totality of the evidence, decedent employee's walking to the end of the ditch approximately 2 hours prior to the end of the day was an unexplained anomaly. At the end of each workday, a trench box was moved to the end of the pipe so that workers could work in safety to prepare for the ditch to the refilled to ground level overnight. Thus the lack of a trench box at that location at that time of day was not a willful safety violation since there was no expectation that any employee would be at location at that time. A trench box was only required over the portion of the pipe on which work needed to be performed. It had never been necessary for an employee to leave the trench box to perform work, and the trench box could be moved to the portion of the pipe on which work was to be performed. It was never intended or expected for any employee to leave the trench box to perform work tasks.

7. The lack of an adequate protective system for a trench of the dimensions of the one dug by Sanders Constructors on the date of the incident was a violation of OSHA regulations found at29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1). However, there was no showing that this violation was a proximate cause of death.

6. As a result of her investigation and her interviews with witnesses, including Kevin McCracken, Ms. Israel concluded that at the end of each day Sanders Constructors would place a piece of lumber at the end of the pipe to prevent backfill from entering the pipe as the exposed end was covered up at the end of the workday. This lumber would also mark the end of the pipe where work would begin the next working day.

7. McCracken was a foreman for Sanders Constructors and had been so employed for 1.5 to 2 years before the incident giving rise to this claim, and McCracken had undergone Competent Person Training in safe excavation and trenching practices.

8. Sanders Constructors was previously cited on September 22, 1997 for three violations of OSHA safety regulations pertaining to safe trenching operations, two of which were classified as "Serious." One of the "Serious" citations was for violation of29 C.F.R. § 1926.652(a)(1).

9. As a result of Ms. Israel's investigation, she caused three (3) citations for fifteen (15) violations of OSHA safety regulations to be issued against Sanders Constructors.

10. "Citation Number One" consisted of two (2) "Serious Willful" violations of OSHA safety regulations.

11. "Citation Number Two" consisted of ten (10) "Serious" violations of OSHA safety regulations. The remainder of the cited violations were classified as "Non-Serious."

12. Thereafter, Ms. Israel turned the matter over to her supervisor, Douglas R. Jones.

13. After Sanders Constructors received formal notice of the citations, Sanders Constructors contested the citations through the Division's appeal procedures.

14. On July 8, 2003, the Division and Sanders Constructors entered into a consent settlement of the citations against Sanders Constructors for violations of OSHA safety regulations.

15.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gomez v. Sanders Constructors, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gomez-v-sanders-constructors-inc-ncworkcompcom-2006.