ILNews

Fall protection mandatory for residential jobs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

On Oct. 1, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration will begin enforcing fall protection plans for residential contractors. The regulations have long applied to commercial construction, but this year marks the first that OSHA will begin requiring residential contractors to exercise the same level of caution when employees are working more than six feet above the ground.

Sean Devenney, who practices construction law for Drewry Simmons Vornehm in Carmel, said contractors have sensed this change coming for quite some time.
 

devenney-sean-mug Devenney

“It’s been 12 years of comment, and now (OSHA is) saying: Hey listen, the technology in fall protection has gotten good enough, cheap enough, and we’ve decided that it’s just too important, and the statement that it’s economically infeasible just doesn’t hold water – you’ve got to protect your employees.”

What it means

According to OSHA regulation section 1926.502, all residential construction companies must ensure that workers are protected from falling by means of safety nets, guardrails, or other safety mechanisms like harnesses. This new directive seems to be a direct response to the high number of workplace fatalities that are caused by falls.

Preliminary findings of the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries show that 115 people died on the job in Indiana last year, 18 of whom worked in construction. Across all occupations, falls were the third most common cause of fatal workplace injury, accounting for 17 deaths. Transportation incidents and contact with objects and equipment were the most common causes of workplace fatalities.


ripley-mike-mug Ripley

Mike Ripley, vice president of health care policy and workplace safety for the Indiana Chamber, said that being in compliance with OSHA’s guidelines may be easier for some businesses than others.

“The additional personal restraint guardrail systems that are required over six feet are going to have some impact on small business,” he said. “There will be some added costs.”

Ripley said that a greater concern for the chamber is that under the Obama administration, OSHA seems to have become much more aggressive in enforcing policies. For example, he said, OSHA now cites as a recurring offense anything that happens at least twice in a five-year time frame, rather than the previous standard of three years. Repeat violations lead to higher fines.

“They’re cracking down more and looking at repeat offenders … it makes business the bad guy,” he said. “Please don’t get me wrong – we are for protecting workers and employees

and making sure they have a safe environment.” But he questions whether potentially levying higher fines, with increasing frequency, is the right approach.

Devenney points out that fines can add up quickly for small-time contractors.

“The fines can range from $7,000 to $70,000, so for a roofing contractor … you get fined $7,000 for a full violation, and that’s the whole roof that you just put on,” Devenney said.


todd-ronald-mug Todd

Ronald Todd, a Noblesville personal injury attorney, thinks his perspective may be different, because of the nature of his work.

“It’s sad if people don’t want to spend a little extra money to protect people from getting injured,” Todd said. Even though he does not handle OSHA complaints, he has handled civil cases involving parties seeking recovery due to workplace injury or death, and he said he believes all construction companies – no matter how small – should have a comprehensive safety plan in place.

“Most of these things could’ve been prevented, if they had just followed OSHA,” Todd said.

Enforcement

OSHA has given contractors the better part of a year to make sure they’re in compliance with the fall protection guidelines. In December 2010, OSHA announced that it would begin enforcing the guidelines this year, although that date has been pushed back a few times. As of Oct. 1, however, the “grace period” for contractors to adapt to the standards is over.

“I don’t know whether it’s only speculation on my part that Indiana OSHA will focus on this, but my sense is that if you issue a new rule like this, you’re probably going to do the regulatory thing and make sure it’s known that: we’re taking it seriously,” Devenney said.

Chetrice Mosley, spokeswoman for the Indiana Department of Labor, the office that oversees the Indiana OSHA office, said IOSHA has not hired additional inspectors to enforce the revision to its regulations. Generally, she explained, IOSHA investigates a business when a complaint has already been filed; but there are times when businesses are randomly selected for inspection. In any workplace where a fatality has occurred, IOSHA investigates.

She said if inspectors were to see a violation in plain sight – like a roofer teetering precariously with no safeguards against falling – they could do an on-the-spot inspection.

“But we’re not necessarily driving around looking for that,” she said. “While we’re going to be enforcing this as it comes to our attention ... we also have a division called INSafe, in which we work with Indiana employers, employees, labor unions, etcetera.” Through INSafe, companies may ask IOSHA to inspect their businesses so they know whether they’re in compliance.


fetty-jeremy-mug Fetty

Jeremy Fetty, of Parr Richey Obremskey Frandsen & Patterson’s Lebanon office, said he thinks that contractors who are affiliated with trade organizations are probably aware of the new OSHA requirements.

“But my sense is that some of the smaller and general contractors that aren’t as involved in trade associations … I’m not sure how much they even are aware of what the requirements are, and if they are, I’m not sure if they’re taking them seriously yet.”

He echoed Ripley’s statement that OSHA seems to have become more aggressive under the Obama administration.

“Do I think they’re going to spend a lot of time and resources chasing down contractors? Probably not,” he said. “But you’re probably going to get a lot of OSHA inspectors who are going to keep a better eye out.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT