Matsu Alabama, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health, et al

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Petitioner Matsu Alabama, Inc.. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Signed. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.--[Edited 11/21/2016 by DC]

Case: 15-15676

Date Filed: 11/21/2016

Page: 1 of 2

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-15676
________________________
Agency No. 13-1713

MATSU ALABAMA, INC.,
Petitioner,
versus
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
________________________
(November 21, 2016)
Before TJOFLAT and HULL, Circuit Judges, and BYRON, * District Judge.
HULL, Circuit Judge:
*

Honorable Paul G. Byron, United States District Judge, for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.

Case: 15-15676

Date Filed: 11/21/2016

Page: 2 of 2

Appellant Matsu Alabama, Inc. (“Matsu”) appeals from the final order of the
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the “Commission”). After
an investigation, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued three
citations against Matsu for safety standards violations. Citation 1 had six items,
Citation 2 had one item, and Citation 3 had one item.
Matsu contested the citations, and the Secretary of Labor initiated an
enforcement action. The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) conducted a four-day
trial, required extensive briefing, and issued a sixty-page Decision and Order. The
ALJ affirmed all but the second item in Citation 1 and assessed penalties totaling
$103,000. The Commission denied Matsu’s petition for discretionary review, and
the ALJ’s decision became a final order of the Commission on November 2, 2015.
Matsu then filed a petition for review in this Court. On March 3, 2016, this Court
denied Matsu’s motion for a stay pending review.
After review of the record and with the benefit of oral argument, the Court
finds no reversible error in the ALJ’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. We
accordingly deny Matsu’s petition for review and affirm the final order of the
Commission.
AFFIRMED.

2