Mountain Cascade v. Cal. Occupational Safety and Health

Filed 4/14/06 Mountain Cascade v. Cal. Occupational Safety and Health Appeals 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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)

The California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board (the Board) affirmed a citation issued against Mountain Cascade, Inc. Mountain Cascade petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate seeking to set aside the Board's decision. The trial court denied Mountain Cascade's petition. On appeal, Mountain Cascade contends the trial court erred because: (1) the Board denied Mountain Cascade its due process rights; and (2) substantial evidence supported a conclusion that Mountain Cascade did not violate section 4999, subdivision (a) of title 8 of the California Code of Regulations.^[1] We conclude the Board did not violate Mountain Cascade's due process rights and its decision was supported by substantial evidence, so we affirm the trial court's judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mountain Cascade was performing seismic retrofitting work on an above-ground, concrete-encased steel pipeline in Stockton. The pipeline was 90 inches in diameter. The work required placing equipment inside the pipeline through an opening cut out of its top. Mountain Cascade used a hydraulic crane mounted on the bed of a flatbed truck to place and remove equipment from the pipeline. On several occasions the crane moved a forklift that was used inside the pipeline. The undisputed weight of the forklift is 8,420 pounds.

On October 30, 1998, Mountain Cascade was using the truck crane to lift the forklift out of the pipeline when the truck crane tipped. It came to rest against the pipe, fatally injuring the operator as it pinned him between the crane and the pipeline.

Real party in interest, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (the Division), investigated the accident. It issued a citation to Mountain Cascade alleging Mountain Cascade operated the crane beyond its rated capacity, in violation of section 4999, subdivision (a).^[2]

Mountain Cascade appealed the citation to the Board. The administrative law judge (ALJ) considered five factors in determining whether the crane was loaded beyond its rated capacity within the meaning of section 4999, subdivision (a): (1) the weight of the object being lifted; (2) the angle of the boom; (3) the radius of the pick, which is the distance between the center of rotation of the boom and the center of the load; (4) the boom extension, if any; and (5) whether the line lifting the load was vertical at the time of the lift.

The ability of a crane to safely lift an object decreases as the distance between the center of rotation of the crane and its load (the radius) increases. A capacity chart indicates proper load capacities for combinations of weights and load radii.

The Division offered the testimony of five witnesses, who presented varying evidence about the crane, its position, and its load. Mountain Cascade called no witnesses at the hearing.

The ALJ determined Mountain Cascade did operate the crane beyond its rated capacity, in violation of section 4999, subdivision (a). He made a series of findings. First, he decided there was a pick radius of at least eight feet. The ALJ based this figure on â€