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


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[Edited 11/21/2016 by DC]

Download PDF
Case: 15-15676 Date Filed: 11/21/2016 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 15-15676 ________________________ Agency No. 13-1713 MATSU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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?