U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1988

Regional Scaffolding & Hoisting Co., Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · Decided October 20, 1988 · Oakes, Miner, Altimari

865 F.2d 16; 1989 CCH OSHD 28,398; 13 OSHC (BNA) 1935; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 18096; 1988 WL 143100 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Angelo J. Genova, DeMaria, Ellis & Hunt, Newark, N.J. (James M. Burns, De-Maria, Ellis & Hunt; Barry Asen, Roberts & Finger, New York City, of counsel), for petitioner., John Shortall, Office of the Sol., U.S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D.C. (George R. Salem, Cynthia L. Attwood, Ann Rosen-thal, U.S. Dept, of Labor, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

(PC) Gonzalez v. Anderson (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2021)
United States v. Bareno-Burgos (District Court, E.D. New York 1990)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Regional Scaffolding & Hoisting Co., Inc., seeks review of a final order of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. Petitioner was cited for violating a regulation during erection of a personnel hoist at a construction site. The only issue on appeal is whether the regulation applies during the installation of hoists. We find that it does.

The regulation, 29 C.F.R. § 1926.552(c)(8) (1987), provides that personnel hoist *17 “[d]oors or gates shall be provided with electric contacts which do not allow movement of the hoist when door or gate is open.” Petitioner was cited for disabling the safety mechanism on a hoist to carry a tie beam that would not fit in the elevator with the door closed. The beam was to be used to attach the top of the hoist to the building.

We must affirm the Commission’s interpretation of the regulation unless it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the law. Pratt & Whitney Aircraft v. Donovan, 715 F.2d 57, 61 (2d Cir. 1983); General Elec. Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Comm’n, 583 F.2d 61, 64 (2d Cir. 1978). Petitioner argues that the regulation does not apply during the installation of hoists. We find, however, that the plain language of the regulation indicates that it is not limited to any particular phase of construction. We therefore deny the petition to review.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.