Beutler Heating & Air Conditioning v. Cal. Ooccupational Safety & health Appelas
Filed 4/17/06 Beutler Heating & Air Conditioning v. Cal. Ooccupational Safety & health Appelas Bd. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| BEUTLER HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. | C050020
(Super. Ct. No. 01CS01762)
|
This appeal arises from a judgment upholding an administrative decision finding employer Beutler Heating & Air Conditioning (Beutler) violated an occupational safety standard. Beutler claims it was engaged in a roofing operation, which is governed by a less restrictive safety standard, and thus did not violate the cited safety standard. We conclude substantial evidence supports the administrative decision and therefore affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Beutler, a sheet metal contractor, contracted to install heating and air conditioning, rain gutters, and roof flashing at a residence located in Napa, California.
Real party in interest, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Division), is primarily responsible for administering and enforcing the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 (Lab. Code, § 6300 et seq.), which it does by investigating workplaces and enforcing occupational safety and health standards. (Lab. Code, §§ 6309, 6313, 6314.) Many of these standards, commonly referred to as safety orders, are codified at title 8 of the California Code of Regulations.[1]
On December 30, 1999, the Division, acting through Associate Safety Engineer Stephan A. Williams, conducted a regional planned inspection at the Napa residence. Williams saw Beutler's foreman, Armando Cinco, installing edge flashing at the edge of the roof on the two-story residence. The fall distance from the eave of the roof to the ground was 18 1/2 feet. Cinco was not using any form of fall protection equipment.[2]
On January 3, 2000, the Division issued Citation 1 to Beutler, alleging a serious violation of section 1670, subdivision (a), and a proposed civil penalty of $1,500. At the administrative hearing, the administrative law judge upheld Citation 1 and its attendant civil penalty. Beutler appealed the administrative law judge's decision to the Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (Board), which affirmed the decision in its Consolidated Decision After Reconsideration.[3] Beutler filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the Sacramento County Superior Court pursuant to Labor Code section 6627. The superior court upheld the Board's decision and denied the writ petition.
DISCUSSION
I
Standard of Review
â€
