Roofing

Roofing contractor whose employee died in fall faces nearly $1.8 million in fines

3 Mins read

A Saco-primarily based roof craftsman is going through almost $1.Eight million in fines for failing to shield his employees from falls, after one died in December in a plunge from a roof on Munjoy Hill.
Shawn D. Purvis, 44, faces a complete $1,792,726 in fines from the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The employer cites what is referred to as thirteen egregious violations of failing to protect his employees from fall hazards, one for every worker who labored at activity websites that had been the point of interest of the investigation.

A spokesman for OSHA said it is the most important workplace safety best in New England in the latest years. Four million levy towards a Massachusetts employer in 2017 for failing to defend two employees who died in a trench when it was packed with water. It dwarfs a 2015 penalty of $287,660 for a Maine construction organization for similar disasters to defend against worker falls and a $1.
“Effective fall safety can prevent tragedies like this whilst a company guarantees the proper use of legally required lifesaving protection,” stated OSHA Area Director David McGuan in a declaration. “An ongoing refusal to comply with the regulation exposes other personnel to probably fatal or disabling accidents. Employers can’t avoid their responsibility to ensure a secure and healthful paintings website online.”

Alan Loignon, 30, a longtime Purvis roofing employee and Purvis’ half of brother, fell to his dying Dec. Thirteen, 2018, from a 3rd-tale roof on Munjoy Hill in Portland as he attempted to climb down a ladder onto a scaffolding platform, OSHA said in its investigative record.
Under federal OSHA hints, any company whose work is uncovered to a drop of greater than 6 feet wherein there is no guardrail is needed to make sure employees use fall protection, whether or not through personal protection harnesses, trap nets, or other fall-arresting structures.
Among other violations, OSHA levied the maximum high-quality of $132,598 for each of the thirteen people gift at the Munjoy Hill job web page and another in Old Orchard Beach who were no longer included through fall-arresting structures required by using the law.
Purvis has 15 enterprise days to pay the fines, contest them, or ask for an informal assembly with federal officers wherein he can argue for modification or reduction of the penalty.
Purvis’ attorney, Thomas Hallett, said his purchaser plans to mission the OSHA fines through arguing that the federal place of job protection organization is stretching its own guidelines impermissibly and lacks the jurisdiction to sanction Purvis Home Improvement Inc., Purvis’s agency, because Purvis dealt with his workers as subcontractors and, therefore, could not workout manage over them.

“Because Purvis Home Improvement cannot exercise manipulate over how impartial contractors do their jobs, it can not mandate safety protocols,” Hallett stated in an email. “Purvis Home Improvement can and did make certain that all necessary protection equipment become available always.”
Hallett additionally alleged that Loignon’s loss of life resulted from his personal choice now not to put on a protection harness.
He also stated Loignon ingested concentrated marijuana, called dabs, whilst he changed into on the roof earlier than he fell. A toxicology test after Loignon’s dying showed he had high levels of THC in his bloodstream.
“I also need to point out that the fact of this case is that Mr. Loignon selected not to wear a protection harness, which was at the site, after which selected to go up at the roof and dab marijuana which caused him to fall,” Hallet wrote in an electronic mail. “Those choices proved disastrous but had been truly no longer my client’s fault.”
In preceding interviews, Purvis has echoed his attorney’s arguments, announcing he isn’t always an agency and rather hires unbiased subcontractors. At the same time, as he encourages them to use the safety gear he presents, he can’t force them to conform. Purvis said he has battled OSHA for a dozen years over this factor and has refused to pay the kind of $ forty-four 000 in preceding fines the protection business enterprise has tried to levy against him.
But that argument contradicts a roofing enterprise felony institution’s recommendation that even though a commercial enterprise owner classifies an employee as a subcontractor, the owner remains chargeable for implementing OSHA policies.

819 posts

About author
Amateur web fanatic. Explorer. Music fan. Reader. Problem solver. Alcohol buff. Internet maven. Have a strong interest in promoting plush toys in the aftermarket. Spent 2001-2006 exporting robotic shrimp in Ohio. My current pet project is licensing foreign currency in Ocean City, NJ. Was quite successful at developing mannequins in Jacksonville, FL. Crossed the country developing clip-on ties in Atlantic City, NJ. Spent 2002-2007 selling bullwhips in the government sector.
Articles
    Related posts
    Roofing

    Roofing Market 2019: Worldwide Analysis by using Industry Size, Recent Trends,

    3 Mins read
    Pune, India, June 12, 2019, The worldwide roofing market is fairly rewarding and predicted to witness a big increase at a 3….
    Roofing

    Global TPO Roofing Membrane Market Report 2019: Growth inside the Building & Construction Industry and Increasing Demand for Green Roofing Solutions

    2 Mins read
    The global TPO roofing membrane market is anticipated to attain $2.2 billion by 2024, with a CAGR of 3.7% from 2019 to…
    Roofing

    Former roofing co. Commercial enterprise manager pleads to $63G thefts

    2 Mins read
    MEDIA COURTHOUSE — The former business supervisor for a local roofing company pleaded “no contest” Tuesday to a few crook lawsuits charging…