JBS Plainwell, Inc. operated a meat-processing facility where, in February 2019, an employee, Christy Cox, was injured after her torn frock became caught in a wheel on the underside of a conveyor. When Cox attempted to pull the frock loose, her hand was pulled into the moving conveyor. At the time of the incident, the conveyor was missing a top-side guard. A MIOSHA safety officer conducted an inspection the following month and prepared a field narrative report documenting observations and statements from employees. Based on the inspection, MIOSHA issued a citation alleging a violation of Rule 408.11442(2), which required guarding to prevent employee access to conveyor nip points.
An administrative law judge later vacated the citation. The ALJ reasoned that Cox’s torn frock and actions leading up to the injury were unforeseeable and not reasonably predictable given her training. The ALJ also found insufficient evidence that JBS violated the guarding requirement. MIOSHA appealed to the Board of Health and Safety Compliance and Appeals.
The Board reversed the ALJ’s decision, concluding that the evidence showed Cox had access to the unguarded nip point during normal conveyor operation. The Board determined that JBS violated the guarding rule because the conveyor lacked a top-side guard that would have prevented access by loose clothing. The Board also determined that the field narrative report was admissible and could be considered alongside other evidence.
JBS appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court affirmed the Board’s decision, finding that the field narrative report was admissible and that sufficient competent and material evidence supported the Board’s conclusions.
The Court of Appeals reviewed two main questions: whether the field narrative report was admissible and whether substantial evidence supported the violation finding.
The court explained that administrative proceedings allow consideration of evidence not admissible under traditional courtroom rules, but an agency decision cannot rest solely on inadmissible hearsay. The court determined that the field narrative report fell within the business-record exception, as the safety officer prepared it in the regular course of inspections. Employee statements within the report were also admissible as statements of a party opponent.
Regarding the alleged violation, the court examined the four elements MIOSHA needed to establish: applicability of the standard, noncompliance with its terms, employee access to the hazardous condition, and employer knowledge or constructive knowledge of the condition. It was undisputed that the conveyor standard applied. The record showed that the conveyor lacked a top-side guard at the time of Cox’s injury, exposing the nip point. Evidence also indicated that Cox had access to that nip point and that the missing guard contributed to the incident.
On the question of employer knowledge, the court reviewed evidence that safety personnel observed the missing guard shortly after the incident and that guards were sometimes removed for maintenance. Cox had also indicated that the guard had been missing for months. Based on this evidence and the deferential standard of review applied to agency fact-finding, the court concluded that the Board could reasonably find that JBS could have known of the missing guard through reasonable diligence.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. It held that the field narrative report was admissible and that the Board’s decision was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence. The citation for failing to guard the conveyor nip point therefore remained in place.
If you’ve experienced issues involving OSHA safety compliance or workplace safety enforcement, Whitcomb Selinsky PC handles OSHA safety matters. Reach out to our team through our contact page to learn how our team can assist with your claim.