• About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Learn WordPress
    • Support
    • Feedback
  • Log In
  • Personnel
    • Professional Safety Staffing
    • Safety Recruiting
    • Careers with FDRsafety
  • Expert Witness
    • Jim Stanley
    • Steve Hawkins
    • Expert Witness Services
  • Compliance
    • Risk Assessments
    • Industrial Hygiene
    • Fall Protection Safety Services
    • Forklift Safety Services
    • Machine Guarding Safety Services
    • Combustible Dust Compliance
    • Confined Space Safety
  • Safety Training
    • Safety Awareness
    • Instructor-led courses
    • Training Case Study
  • About
    • Our Mission and Values
    • Our Leaders
    • FDRsafety Senior Advisors
    • Safety Solutions Blog
    • Safety Terms Glossary
  • Careers
  • Contact
    FDRsafety
    • Personnel
      • Professional Safety Staffing
      • Safety Recruiting
      • Careers with FDRsafety
    • Expert Witness
      • Jim Stanley
      • Steve Hawkins
      • Expert Witness Services
    • Compliance
      • Risk Assessments
      • Industrial Hygiene
      • Fall Protection Safety Services
      • Forklift Safety Services
      • Machine Guarding Safety Services
      • Combustible Dust Compliance
      • Confined Space Safety
    • Safety Training
      • Safety Awareness
      • Instructor-led courses
      • Training Case Study
    • About
      • Our Mission and Values
      • Our Leaders
      • FDRsafety Senior Advisors
      • Safety Solutions Blog
      • Safety Terms Glossary
    • Careers
    • Contact

Enforcement

U.S. appeals court rules against OSHA on machine guards

  • Posted by Jim Stanley
  • Categories Enforcement, OSHA
  • Date October 18, 2015

A federal appeals court has ruled against OSHA in a case stemming from a fatal accident involving a lathe at a manufacturing plant, saying that the agency’s interpretation of its regulations on machine guards “strains a common sense reading.”

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that regulations were designed to protect workers from “point of contact risks and risks associated with the routine operation of lathes, such as flakes and sparks.” The accident at a Loren Cook Co. plant was “catastrophic” rather than routine, the court said, occurring when a 12-pound rotating work-piece broke loose from the lathe traveling at a speed of 50 to 70 mph and struck a worker in the head.

OSHA had argued that the agency was entitled to “deference” in its interpretation of its regulations. The Court agreed, but said that the interpretation has to be “reasonable.” In this case, it was not, the court said.

OSHA had issued 7 violations against the company and proposed a $490,000 fine.

 

  • Share:
Jim Stanley

Previous post

September 2015 newsletter
October 18, 2015

Next post

New OSHA recordkeeping rules creating confusion
October 20, 2015

You may also like

1600px-Point_Guarding
Review Commission Machine Guarding Decision
16 February, 2021
FallingRocks-1
Is Gravity Part of OSHA’s LOTO Regulation?
15 April, 2020
FDR-070918
OSHA Alert: How to Prepare for an OSHA Inspection
19 March, 2020

Search

Categories

  • Accident Prevention
  • Articles
  • CSA
  • Enforcement
  • FDRsafety newsletter
  • Legislation
  • News and Announcements
  • OSHA
  • Recordkeeping
  • Research
  • Risk Assessments
  • Safety and sustainability
  • Temporary Safety Professionals / Recruiting
  • Training
  • Transportation safety
  • Uncategorized

Latest Posts

Additional Thoughts On Reevaluating OSHA
06Mar2025
Feasibility For Machine Guarding Is A Big Deal For Employers and Employees
13May2024
Online Powered Industrial Truck Operator Certification Problems
25Aug2023

Get In Touch

Contact

360 Cool Springs Boulevard,
Suite 101,
Franklin, TN 37067

1-888-755-8010

info@fdrsafety.com

Careers

Accreditations

Contact Us

Powered by WordPress.