Paul Sund, an employee of Astra Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., was severely injured and hospitalized when a vat used in the production of chloroacetyl xylidine, an anesthetic ingredient, overflowed, spraying toxic chemicals in the immediate area. Sund, an employee with 20 years' experience, was tending the vat at the time of the overflow.
OSHA inspector Goyda, dispatched to investigate this incident, spoke with some employees who helped wash down Sund. A fellow employee who saw Sund after the accident told Goyda that Sund was "covered from head to toe with chemical, including his head and mouth." Sund's supervisor told Goyda that it was "company policy" that the vat operator wear a respirator, chemical goggles, and gloves. Although no one testified as to exactly what type of protective gear Sund was wearing, the OSHRC found Astra in violation of a specific regulation that compels an employer to make sure that an employee engaged in an operation like Sund's is wearing full-body protection, including boots, chemical retardant clothes, a full face shield, and a self-contained breathing apparatus.
Astra appealed this decision to the court of appeals, claiming that there was not enough evidence to support a citation for a violation of the chemical clothing requirements as no one testified as to exactly what Sund was wearing.
What factors must the court consider when deciding whether to enforce or vacate an OSHRC decision? Should the court set aside this OSHRC decision? Decide. [Astra Pharmaceutical Products v. OSHRC and Donovan, 10 OSHC 1697 (1st Cir.)]