In anticipation of an article in the Meadville Tribune the family of Gary Puleio released this statement to the paper
11/13/01
We, the family of Gary Puleio, are questioning the findings in the OSHA investigation of his death 8/15/01 at Meadville Redi-Mix. We feel the investigation did not adequately address the safety issues and are especially disturbed by the discrepancies between the report of the West Mead Township Police and the OSHA citation. Our concerns are outlined in letters to John Stranahan , Erie Area OSHA director dated 10/11/01 and 10/28/01. These letters have been sent also to Richard Soltan, the regional OSHA director.
Thus far we have not had any response to our questions from either Mr. Stranahan or Mr. Soltan.
As tax paying US citizens, we expect accountability from those agencies our tax dollars fund.
We understand that PA Worker's Compensation Laws are "no fault" and no matter how much negligence is found and no matter who is at fault, a fixed compensation is paid to the victim's widow.
We believe that underlying this law should be the expectation that a fair and adequate investigation was done.
It is only by truly exploring the cause of the accident that further tragedies can be prevented.
We hope that by seeking answers to questions we have about Gary's death that we will eventually find closure and peace. We hope that no family ever has to experience the sadness we live with daily.
Gary will be forever loved and missed by us. His children will be without a father, his wife without a companion. May his legacy be safer worker conditions for others and accountability by those responsible for worker's safety.
The Family of Gary Puleio
Donna Puleio Spadaro MD, sister
Linda Corey Puleio, wife
Paul Puleio, brother
Marion Puleio Krier, sister
Phone 814-437-7891 (Spadaro work)
Phone 814-432-5450 (Spadaro Home)
Gary Anthony Puleio
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
11/15/2001 Meadville Tribune
Stranahan dismisses my concerns as MINOR, while parroting the most implausible claims of Redi- Mix in this Meadville Tribune Article
November 15, 2001
Redi-Mix pays penalty for worker death
By Gary Johnson
Meadville Tribune
WEST MEAD TOWNSHIP - Meadville Redi-Mix Concrete Inc. didn't contest a $6,000 penalty ordered by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration in late September that was related to a death at the company's Cochranton Road plant, but it also did not admit to any wrongdoing.
The company paid the penalty and implemented OSHA-approved safety-enhancement measures, including posting a sign and sealing off unauthorized access to six aggregate bins and a weigh hopper at its 19824 Cochranton Road plant. Among other activities, concrete is mixed at the plant.
OSHA issued the orders following an investigation of the Aug. 15 death of Gary Puleio, who was 53 and lived at 5568 Autumnwood Drive, Cochranton, at the time of his death.
Puleio fell 18 to 20 feet into an empty mixing tower, apparently while shoveling material into the tower.
According to a Sept. 28 OSHA citation, there was no sign at the top of the bins warning of the fall danger where Puleio was working. The bins are used to store sand and gravel materials.
In addition, the bins and weigh hopper, into which material from the bins are dumped, were "not secured to prevent unauthorized entry," according to the citation. The bins are at least 17 feet in depth and the hopper is up to eight feet deep, the citation said. The depths constitute a fall hazard under OSHA regulations.
John Stranahan, OSHA area director, said the violation in this case was classified as repeat, which essentially means violations were corrected but later were found to re-appear.
The citation indicated the same or similar citations had been issued during a June 25 inspection. That inspection was prompted after an OSHA study that indicated businesses like Meadville Redi-Mix had many citations, according to Stranahan. However, he noted Meadville Redi-Mix did not necessarily have a high citation rate. "A lot of concrete batch plants showed up on that list," he said.
He said repeats don't happen often but they do occur. "It just means we have issued a citation for the same standard, or if it's not the same, for a substantially similar condition," he said. "If we've issued something reasonably close in the last three years, we can issue it as a repeat."
Meadville Red-Mix secretary-treasurer, Albert Allegretti, and operations manager, John Shartle, both said the June violations were taken care of quickly and did not pertain to the bin area where Puleio died.
Shartle said the company complied with OSHA's mandates following the June inspection. "We felt we were in 100 percent compliance of OSHA regulations."
Allegretti agreed. "It was taken care of in a relatively short amount of time."
Stranahan noted the company did not ask to settle. "They basically paid the full penalty and submitted photos of the abatement," he said, noting the penalty was paid in full last week. "They just paid it as issued."
Shartle and Allegretti confirmed that the company paid the penalty and took steps ordered by OSHA, but hasn't admitted to any wrongdoing. Neither of the men commented on whether the company accepts responsibility or fault.
Puleio's sister, Donna Puleio Spadaro, is not satisfied with the company's position.
She questioned why Puleio, who was a truck driver, was on top of the bins in the first place. She said it was not part of his regular job duties and that he was afraid of heights and had trouble with his knees.
Shartle said Puleio's death is unfortunate and a blow to the company but he said the reason Puleio died is a mystery to him, as well.
"To the best of our knowledge, he was not instructed to go up there. He was instructed to go out back and help a couple guys go out and clean the tail pulley at the bottom of the conveyor," Shartle said. The tail pulley is at ground level, at the opposite end of the conveyor from the bins. "He came in from his regular duties - driving truck - and he had some free time."
However, Shartle said the workers Puleio was asked to help were apparently finished. From there, he said, Puleio apparently "took it upon himself to go up on top of the plant (bins) to possibly do some cleanup work."
Shartle continued, "We don't have the answers to why he went up there. We will never have the answer. He had the answer."
He said there are safety procedures in place for employees who work on top of the bins. However, he said the main work done up there is general maintenance, and the workers who do that have the necessary safety equipment and skills. "We have straps, we have ropes. The guys that are trained in that area have that equipment. They are the ones to go up there. If (Puleio) had been instructed to go up there, he'd have had the necessary equipment. He was specifically instructed to go to the tail pulley, which is on the ground.
"However, the type of employee that Gary was, he always did more than you expected. That's the way he was," Shartle said.
Spadaro noted that West Mead Township Police Officer Chip Brown wrote in his report on the incident that "discrepancies" existed between what company employees told him and what they told OSHA's investigator.
Spadaro sent a letter to Stranahan, asking what these discrepancies were and why they were not considered in the investigation.
Stranahan said of the discrepancies, "They really did not have much of a bearing on our investigation. The discrepancies were, in my view, minor. For example, some folks said the victim was afraid of heights and some said he was not. Things like that."
He said as far as OSHA is concerned, the case is closed and no further action or review is planned.
That doesn't allay Spadaro's concerns.
"A fine of $6,000 is pathetic and insulting when the life of a hard-working, cautious man like Gary was so callously thrown away," she said.
However, Allegretti noted the penalty was for a code violation, not for Puleio's death. Shartle stressed that no dollar figure or penalty could be put on a human life.
"We are still grieving the loss of an excellent employee," Shartle said. "He'd have been a long-term employee here. He did an outstanding job. We valued him."
"People here still think about Gary," Allegretti said. "It's still a loss to us."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
back
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Classified | Births | Deaths | Sound Off | Links | Lottery | Church | Area Events | TV Listings | Subscribe | National News | Contact Us
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All contents © copyright 2001 The Meadville Tribune. All rights reserved worldwide.
November 15, 2001
Redi-Mix pays penalty for worker death
By Gary Johnson
Meadville Tribune
WEST MEAD TOWNSHIP - Meadville Redi-Mix Concrete Inc. didn't contest a $6,000 penalty ordered by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration in late September that was related to a death at the company's Cochranton Road plant, but it also did not admit to any wrongdoing.
The company paid the penalty and implemented OSHA-approved safety-enhancement measures, including posting a sign and sealing off unauthorized access to six aggregate bins and a weigh hopper at its 19824 Cochranton Road plant. Among other activities, concrete is mixed at the plant.
OSHA issued the orders following an investigation of the Aug. 15 death of Gary Puleio, who was 53 and lived at 5568 Autumnwood Drive, Cochranton, at the time of his death.
Puleio fell 18 to 20 feet into an empty mixing tower, apparently while shoveling material into the tower.
According to a Sept. 28 OSHA citation, there was no sign at the top of the bins warning of the fall danger where Puleio was working. The bins are used to store sand and gravel materials.
In addition, the bins and weigh hopper, into which material from the bins are dumped, were "not secured to prevent unauthorized entry," according to the citation. The bins are at least 17 feet in depth and the hopper is up to eight feet deep, the citation said. The depths constitute a fall hazard under OSHA regulations.
John Stranahan, OSHA area director, said the violation in this case was classified as repeat, which essentially means violations were corrected but later were found to re-appear.
The citation indicated the same or similar citations had been issued during a June 25 inspection. That inspection was prompted after an OSHA study that indicated businesses like Meadville Redi-Mix had many citations, according to Stranahan. However, he noted Meadville Redi-Mix did not necessarily have a high citation rate. "A lot of concrete batch plants showed up on that list," he said.
He said repeats don't happen often but they do occur. "It just means we have issued a citation for the same standard, or if it's not the same, for a substantially similar condition," he said. "If we've issued something reasonably close in the last three years, we can issue it as a repeat."
Meadville Red-Mix secretary-treasurer, Albert Allegretti, and operations manager, John Shartle, both said the June violations were taken care of quickly and did not pertain to the bin area where Puleio died.
Shartle said the company complied with OSHA's mandates following the June inspection. "We felt we were in 100 percent compliance of OSHA regulations."
Allegretti agreed. "It was taken care of in a relatively short amount of time."
Stranahan noted the company did not ask to settle. "They basically paid the full penalty and submitted photos of the abatement," he said, noting the penalty was paid in full last week. "They just paid it as issued."
Shartle and Allegretti confirmed that the company paid the penalty and took steps ordered by OSHA, but hasn't admitted to any wrongdoing. Neither of the men commented on whether the company accepts responsibility or fault.
Puleio's sister, Donna Puleio Spadaro, is not satisfied with the company's position.
She questioned why Puleio, who was a truck driver, was on top of the bins in the first place. She said it was not part of his regular job duties and that he was afraid of heights and had trouble with his knees.
Shartle said Puleio's death is unfortunate and a blow to the company but he said the reason Puleio died is a mystery to him, as well.
"To the best of our knowledge, he was not instructed to go up there. He was instructed to go out back and help a couple guys go out and clean the tail pulley at the bottom of the conveyor," Shartle said. The tail pulley is at ground level, at the opposite end of the conveyor from the bins. "He came in from his regular duties - driving truck - and he had some free time."
However, Shartle said the workers Puleio was asked to help were apparently finished. From there, he said, Puleio apparently "took it upon himself to go up on top of the plant (bins) to possibly do some cleanup work."
Shartle continued, "We don't have the answers to why he went up there. We will never have the answer. He had the answer."
He said there are safety procedures in place for employees who work on top of the bins. However, he said the main work done up there is general maintenance, and the workers who do that have the necessary safety equipment and skills. "We have straps, we have ropes. The guys that are trained in that area have that equipment. They are the ones to go up there. If (Puleio) had been instructed to go up there, he'd have had the necessary equipment. He was specifically instructed to go to the tail pulley, which is on the ground.
"However, the type of employee that Gary was, he always did more than you expected. That's the way he was," Shartle said.
Spadaro noted that West Mead Township Police Officer Chip Brown wrote in his report on the incident that "discrepancies" existed between what company employees told him and what they told OSHA's investigator.
Spadaro sent a letter to Stranahan, asking what these discrepancies were and why they were not considered in the investigation.
Stranahan said of the discrepancies, "They really did not have much of a bearing on our investigation. The discrepancies were, in my view, minor. For example, some folks said the victim was afraid of heights and some said he was not. Things like that."
He said as far as OSHA is concerned, the case is closed and no further action or review is planned.
That doesn't allay Spadaro's concerns.
"A fine of $6,000 is pathetic and insulting when the life of a hard-working, cautious man like Gary was so callously thrown away," she said.
However, Allegretti noted the penalty was for a code violation, not for Puleio's death. Shartle stressed that no dollar figure or penalty could be put on a human life.
"We are still grieving the loss of an excellent employee," Shartle said. "He'd have been a long-term employee here. He did an outstanding job. We valued him."
"People here still think about Gary," Allegretti said. "It's still a loss to us."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
back
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Home | Classified | Births | Deaths | Sound Off | Links | Lottery | Church | Area Events | TV Listings | Subscribe | National News | Contact Us
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All contents © copyright 2001 The Meadville Tribune. All rights reserved worldwide.
Soltan110801
Access to information under FIOA was denied "in part" Opportunity to appeal is mentioned
Case File Diary
Although access to the complete records was denied, this "time line" was released.
A time line of the OSHA "investigation"
CLICK TO ENLARGE
A time line of the OSHA "investigation"
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Soltan 11/15/2001
11/15/01
Richard D. Soltan
Regional Administrator
OSHA
The Curtis Center
170 S. Independence Mall
Philadelphia, Pa 19106
Dear Mr. Soltan:
I am writing to obtain follow up to my letter of 10/28/01 regarding my concerns about the OSHA investigation into the death of my brother, Gary Puleio, on 8/15/01 at Meadville Redi-Mix and the discrepancies between the West Mead Township police report and the OSHA citation. I am enclosing a copy of this letter for your repeat review.
Although I have not received a response from either Mr. Stranahan or you, it appears that in the article “Redi-Mix pays penalty for worker death” Meadville Tribune, 11/15/01(attached) my concerns were dismissed by Mr Stranahan as “minor” and evidently not deemed worthy of a response.
This article reiterates, through statements made by Redi-Mix management, the totally implausible statement that my brother climbed to the turntable area on top of that tower on his own, without being instructed to by anyone. This appears contrary to statements made in the police report by the first 3 persons on the scene. Of note, neither of the Redi-Mix people quoted in the article gave a statement to the police.
Evidently by accepting this unbelievable statement as an irrefutable fact, OSHA has abrogated Redi-Mix from any responsibility for not providing safety devices nor a method of preventing that turntable from being turned on when someone is up there cleaning it.
I will not belabor the issues by repeating all of them but ask you to review the accompanying letter of 10/28/01 and the police report.
Do you indeed feel my concerns are “minor” and not worthy of a response from your agency? As a tax paying US citizen who now mourns the death of my brother, I would expect more accountability and concern from your agency.
Allow me to express my dissatisfaction and sadness at the callousness of your agency. I find this shameful.
Sincerely,
Donna Puleio Spadaro MD
309 Warren Rd
Franklin, PA 16323
814-437-7891
814-432-5450
Enclosure: Letter to John Stranahan(CC: Richard Soltan) 10/28/01
Complaint Report 01-1040 West Mead Township Police Department
“Redi-Mix pays penalty for worker death” Meadville Tribune 11/15/01
CC: John Stranahan, OSHA, Suite B12, 3939 West Ridge Road, Erie, PA 16506
CC: John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Health and Safety, USDOL, 200 Constitution Ave. Washington, DC 20210
CC: Congressman John Peterson, 115 West Spring St. Titusville, Pa. 16354
CC: Senator Rick Santorum, 1705 West 26th St. Erie, Pa. 16508
CC: Senator Arlen Specter, Room 107, Federal Building , 6th and State St, Erie, Pa 16501
CC: Representative Phil English, 312 Chestnut St. Meadville, Pa 16335
CC: The Meadville Tribune, 947 Federal Court, Meadville, PA. 16335
Richard D. Soltan
Regional Administrator
OSHA
The Curtis Center
170 S. Independence Mall
Philadelphia, Pa 19106
Dear Mr. Soltan:
I am writing to obtain follow up to my letter of 10/28/01 regarding my concerns about the OSHA investigation into the death of my brother, Gary Puleio, on 8/15/01 at Meadville Redi-Mix and the discrepancies between the West Mead Township police report and the OSHA citation. I am enclosing a copy of this letter for your repeat review.
Although I have not received a response from either Mr. Stranahan or you, it appears that in the article “Redi-Mix pays penalty for worker death” Meadville Tribune, 11/15/01(attached) my concerns were dismissed by Mr Stranahan as “minor” and evidently not deemed worthy of a response.
This article reiterates, through statements made by Redi-Mix management, the totally implausible statement that my brother climbed to the turntable area on top of that tower on his own, without being instructed to by anyone. This appears contrary to statements made in the police report by the first 3 persons on the scene. Of note, neither of the Redi-Mix people quoted in the article gave a statement to the police.
Evidently by accepting this unbelievable statement as an irrefutable fact, OSHA has abrogated Redi-Mix from any responsibility for not providing safety devices nor a method of preventing that turntable from being turned on when someone is up there cleaning it.
I will not belabor the issues by repeating all of them but ask you to review the accompanying letter of 10/28/01 and the police report.
Do you indeed feel my concerns are “minor” and not worthy of a response from your agency? As a tax paying US citizen who now mourns the death of my brother, I would expect more accountability and concern from your agency.
Allow me to express my dissatisfaction and sadness at the callousness of your agency. I find this shameful.
Sincerely,
Donna Puleio Spadaro MD
309 Warren Rd
Franklin, PA 16323
814-437-7891
814-432-5450
Enclosure: Letter to John Stranahan(CC: Richard Soltan) 10/28/01
Complaint Report 01-1040 West Mead Township Police Department
“Redi-Mix pays penalty for worker death” Meadville Tribune 11/15/01
CC: John Stranahan, OSHA, Suite B12, 3939 West Ridge Road, Erie, PA 16506
CC: John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Health and Safety, USDOL, 200 Constitution Ave. Washington, DC 20210
CC: Congressman John Peterson, 115 West Spring St. Titusville, Pa. 16354
CC: Senator Rick Santorum, 1705 West 26th St. Erie, Pa. 16508
CC: Senator Arlen Specter, Room 107, Federal Building , 6th and State St, Erie, Pa 16501
CC: Representative Phil English, 312 Chestnut St. Meadville, Pa 16335
CC: The Meadville Tribune, 947 Federal Court, Meadville, PA. 16335
Soltan 11/18/01
I wrote to Soltan pointing out to him that Stranahan dismissed my concerns as "minor" in the newspaper
CLICK TO ENLARGE
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
FOIA Appeal
I appeal the FOIA decision not to release all the records
FOIA Appeal
11/23/01
The Solicitor of Labor
U. S Department of Labor
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, D. C. 20210
Greetings:
I am writing to appeal the decision of OSHA not to allow me access to all records, under the Freedom of Information Act, concerning the investigation of the accident that killed my brother, Gary Puleio.(inspection # 303706683) Several items were blackened from the file and two employee statements were excluded from the videotape under exemption 7(c ) and 7(d ). In the enclosed letter from Richard Soltan, which accompanied the “releaseable” file I did receive, my right to appeal was stated.
Allow me first to summarize the circumstances that have prompted me to make this appeal.
Gary Puleio, 53 years old, fell approximately 20 feet to his death from a concrete tower on 8/15/01 at Meadville Redi-Mix, where he had only been employed for 3 months as a truck driver. Gary had told his wife, Linda, the day before his death that he had been assigned the job of “shoveling gravel off the hopper” and had expressed concerns about his safety. Gary’s family and friends knew him to be very cautious and, indeed, to have a fear of heights. He had been undergoing physical therapy for a knee problem prior to becoming employed at Redi-Mix.
We began to question why he would be up on that tower without any safety equipment and performing a job outside of the scope of his truck driving duties, especially given his physical limitations ( having bad knees, being 53 years old) and his fear of heights.
On 10/3/01, Linda received a copy of citation # 303706683.
Redi-Mix was cited for a REPEAT violation of 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(2):
The employer did not inform exposed employees, by posting danger signs or any other equally effective means, of the existence and location of and danger posed by a Permit Required Confined Space (PRCS).
Redi -Mix was also cited for a REPEAT Violation of 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(1): Under the Permit Required Confined Space (PRCS) program required by 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4), the employer did not implement the measures necessary to prevent unauthorized entry.
We were shocked that there was no mention of Gary’s lack of safety equipment, nor the fact he was performing a task outside of his truck driving duties.
I called Jim Watson, the Compliance Officer at the Erie office who investigated this case and was told that Redi-Mix management told him that Gary went up there ON HIS OWN and was not assigned that task. I was appalled to find out that this statement of extremely unlikely veracity evidently abrogated Red-Mix of any culpability in not providing safety devices, supervision or training to Gary.
The attached letter dated 10/11/01 (and marked pages 100-102) to John Stranahan, Erie Area OSHA director outlined my concerns. Please note that I asked about a “notice of informal conference”.(file page 15) The date and times were left blank. I wanted to know why our family was not informed of the time so we could attend as “representative of employee” (i. e. a representative of Gary). This question has not been addressed.
To further explore this tragedy, Linda spoke with Officer Brown of the West Mead Township Police Department and obtained the police report of this accident. Officer Brown told Linda that despite the fact he instructed a Redi-Mix operations manager, John Shartle, to keep the Redi-Mix employees he planned to get statements from separated until he could speak with them the men were NOT separated but were together in his office. This led us to question whether it may have been “suggested” to these men not to vary from management’s unbelievable statement that Gary went up there on his own.
The police report (file pages 82-91) was very disturbing to us. My letter of 10/28/01 (file pages 78-81) to John Stranahan outlines my concerns. I will reiterate them as follows:
1. Cady’s statement(file page 89) that “both Cady and victim have been up there numerous times” and the Winkler statement (file page 91) “victim is mixer driver and duties include going up onto batch plant and cleaning up debris so turntable can move” suggest that Gary was, indeed, assigned that task and did not just go up there on his own.
2. Paragraph 6, Sequence 02, Page 2,(file page 87) Incident Supplemental Report states “The victim also did not have any safety equipment on nor were there any indications that the victim had been wearing any safety equipment at the time of the accident(Note: THERE WAS NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT ON THE TOP OF THE BUILDING) “ Do you not think that this total lack of safety equipment would merit mentioning even if you chose to believe the implausible statement by an individual WHO DID NOT EVEN GIVE A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE that Gary wandered up there on his own?
3. Cady’s statement( file page 89) that he “ pulled his mixer in to be loaded” suggests that the turntable (mentioned in item #1 above) may have been turned on and began moving so as to fill the mixer truck below while Gary was on the turntable cleaning it ( a duty Winkler in item #1 above stated was Gary’s) Cady’s statement that “Jim (presumably Fulmer?) went back to the office to shut off the power” further suggests this. It seems indeed possible the Gary was thrust into the hole by the movement of the turntable. Is there any indication that there are any safety features on that turntable that prevent it from being turned on when someone is up there removing debris from it?
4. Paragraph 9, Sequence 2, Page 1 Incident Supplemental Report(file page 86) states “ There was a definite mark on the steel wall inside the bin where the victim had impacted the wall . The mark was approx. 3 feet directly above where the victim came to rest in the bin” This suggests that rather than Gary just falling into the bin that he may have been thrust into it by the moving turntable and was slammed into its wall with significant momentum prior to hitting the ground. Perhaps this could explain the “ large gash on the right side of his forehead” described in Paragraph 5, sequence 2, page 2, (file page 87)Incident Supplemental Report. Again, is there any way of determining the process for preventing that turntable from moving when someone is up there removing debris from around it?
5. Winkler’s statement that he “felt pulse but victim was not breathing” suggests that it was realized rather quickly what had occurred (perhaps Gary being thrust in hole by turntable?) and that he got to Gary very soon after he hit the bottom of the bin. If story related by Fulmer to Watson and reported in Erie-Times-News “Worker dies at Meadville concrete plant” 8/16/01 , that Gary wandered up there on his own and was only discovered to be missing when he was needed for another task, I would presume he would have been dead for a while when discovered. He would be with out both respirations and pulse.
Furthermore, in the police report (page 88 of file) Officer Brown notes “After speaking to Mr. Watson and there being some DISCREPANCIES between what Keberts (aka Redi-Mix) had told him and what I told him during my investigation Mr. Watson requested a copy of my police report.” We found this a most disturbing statement and asked Mr. Stranahan about the nature of these discrepancies.
Mr. Stranahan did not respond to either of my letters, but in an article entitled “Redi-Mix pays penalty for worker death” Meadville Tribune 11/15/01,(attached) he dismissed my concerns as “minor”. Mr. Shartle, the operations manager who was unable to comply with Officer Brown’s request to keep the employees separated again asserted in this article that Gary “took it upon himself” to go up to the tower and stated that the reason Gary died was a “mystery” to him. I can only hope the members of the community who read this article recognized as preposterous the comments of Mr. Shartle and those of Mr. Stranahan as callous.
Finally, on 11/17/01, I received a letter dated 11/8/01 from Richard Soltan, OSHA Regional Director, who also wrote on the behalf of Mr. Stranahan, along with the “releaseable” records from the file. Mr. Soltan’s letter and the files raised even more concerns. It appears that Gary was up on that tower on other occasions. Please review the following:
1. Page 28 of file: one employee stated that he had seen Mr. Puleio just prior to the accident and asked him where he was going. Mr. Puleio replied “to clean the batch plant” If, indeed, it was improper for Gary to be up there why wouldn’t this violation of the rules reported?
2. Page 9 of file: “ Many drivers access area to clean spillage.”
3. Page 7 of file: “Other employees interviewed (mainly drivers) stated that they do not wear harnesses while in that area.”
4. Page 27 of file: “Mr Puleio stated…he would not go up on top of the batch plant if not required.”
In the Meadville Tribune , “Redi-Mix pays penalty for worker death”, 11/15/01, operations manager, John Shartle, is quoted “The guys that are trained in that area have that equipment. They are the ones to go up there. If (Puleio) had been instructed to go up there, he’d have the necessary equipment.” The above statements certainly make one question the veracity of Shartle’s claims. Even though no one ALIVE can say for certain if Gary was specifically assigned to go to the top of the tower on 8/15/01, the day he was killed, it certainly seems to be past practice to send drivers, including Gary, up there without safety harnesses.
If, as Shartle claims “the main work done up there is general maintenance and the workers who do that have the necessary safety equipment and skills” , then perhaps Redi-Mix could report to OSHA who was last assigned to go to the top of the tower to clean it prior to Gary’s death. Does there exist any record of who may have been “shoveling gravel off the hopper” on 8/14/01, the day Gary told Linda he had concerns for his safety? Would there be any documentation that this individual was one who had the necessary safety equipment and skills? Is there any indication of workers being cited for disobeying the company policy by deciding to go up there seemingly “on a whim” without being instructed to do so and without wearing any safety equipment?
In Mr. Soltan’s letter he stated “ there is a shutoff switch at the top of the catwalk which employees use to turn off electrical power to the turntable before they walk out onto the batch tower.” Was Gary ever instructed about the existence and function of this switch? Does page 64 of the file, a simplistic true-false test with Gary’s signature affixed, constitute proof he was oriented to this safety procedure? Since Gary was not one of , as Shartle phrased it, “ guys that are trained in that area” perhaps he was not informed to use it.
Mr. Soltan’s letter indicates that the OSHA inspector recalled that the discrepancies mentioned by Officer Brown involved 2 items: (1) whether or not Gary had a fear of heights, and (2) whether or not he was an energetic , self motivated employee or just a typical worker. All of us who knew Gary, knew he feared heights. I knew my brother quite well; at the end of his work day he would not take it upon himself to do risky unpleasant work that was not well paying. He was the father of 2 children, a 10 year old handicapped boy and a 3 year old boy. I know my brother would want to be home with his children. He was 53 years old and afraid of losing even the risky low paying job he held at Redi-Mix, by not following a supervisor’s orders, so he went to the top of that tower against his better judgment and died as a consequence of it.
At Gary’s funeral, a co-worker of his approached my sister and me and tearfully offered his condolences and stated “new guys always get the shit work”. Unfortunately we were too distraught to get his name or understand the significance of what he was telling us at the time.
I remain steadfast in my belief that Gary was assigned to go up there, with no safety equipment on 8/15/01, just as he and other drivers had been assigned on other days.
I realize, as Mr. Soltan states in his letter, that “the size of any OSHA fine can never equate to the injury sustained by the worker”. Similarly, I realize that Pennsylvania’s Workers Compensation Law is “no fault” and that no matter how much negligence is uncovered, the surviving spouse receives a fixed percentage of the victim’s wages. However, underlying these principles should be a just, thorough investigation not one that just perfunctorily accepts the egregious claims of the cited employer who would have a financial incentive to minimize any wrongdoing.
It certainly appears that OSHA accepts the implausible statements made by Redi-Mix management as irrefutable facts and ignores the views of Gary’s co-workers and family.
I feel that we should know ALL the statements of the employees in their entirety and have access to the videotaped statements. I especially want to see the statements that are blackened out on pages 29 and 36. What prompted an employee to make a statement on 8/22/01, seven days after the accident (page 36)?
As Gary is no longer alive and here to speak for himself to directly refute the implausible claims of Redi-Mix, we, his family, are his “representatives”. Recall earlier in this letter, I stated that the time and date of the “notice of informal conference” (file page 15) was never told to us despite our request to attend. We wanted to attend as a “representative of employee” (i.e. Gary). We have never been asked to give any input into this case.
Only after Redi-Mix paid a paltry $6000 fine and admitted NO WRONGDOING did we even get a response from Mr. Soltan and the “releaseable” file containing omissions of the very statements that could refute Redi-Mix’s claims.
We as Gary’s representatives appeal to you to send us the ENTIRE file.
I realize the purpose of the exemptions is to protect the identity of confidential sources and protect them from harassment, discrimination and retaliation. I can appreciate the consequences workers at Redi-Mix may face if they disagree with Mr. Shartle about the “mysterious” nature of Gary’s death. Certainly Mr. Shartle had ample time to identify those workers who may have been able to make statements to the police when he failed to separate them as Officer Brown instructed him.
Please give careful consideration to my appeal. I hope that this appeal will give you an opportunity to review this case and perhaps your conscience as well. I would appreciate any comments you have about the concerns outlined in this letter.
I hope to find peace and closure by knowing I did everything I could to find out the truthful circumstances surrounding my brother’s death despite the obfuscations of Redi-Mix. As a taxpaying US citizen, I hope for cooperation and accountability from those agencies my tax dollars fund.
Sincerely,
Donna Puleio Spadaro MD
309 Warren Rd.
Franklin, PA 16323
Home 814-432-5450
Work 814-437-7891
Enclosure: “Redi-Mix pays penalty for worker death” Meadville Tribune, 11/15/01
Letter from Richard Soltan, 11/8/01
File pages 7,9,15, 27, 28, 29, 36 , 64 78-91, 100-102
FOIA Appeal
11/23/01
The Solicitor of Labor
U. S Department of Labor
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, D. C. 20210
Greetings:
I am writing to appeal the decision of OSHA not to allow me access to all records, under the Freedom of Information Act, concerning the investigation of the accident that killed my brother, Gary Puleio.(inspection # 303706683) Several items were blackened from the file and two employee statements were excluded from the videotape under exemption 7(c ) and 7(d ). In the enclosed letter from Richard Soltan, which accompanied the “releaseable” file I did receive, my right to appeal was stated.
Allow me first to summarize the circumstances that have prompted me to make this appeal.
Gary Puleio, 53 years old, fell approximately 20 feet to his death from a concrete tower on 8/15/01 at Meadville Redi-Mix, where he had only been employed for 3 months as a truck driver. Gary had told his wife, Linda, the day before his death that he had been assigned the job of “shoveling gravel off the hopper” and had expressed concerns about his safety. Gary’s family and friends knew him to be very cautious and, indeed, to have a fear of heights. He had been undergoing physical therapy for a knee problem prior to becoming employed at Redi-Mix.
We began to question why he would be up on that tower without any safety equipment and performing a job outside of the scope of his truck driving duties, especially given his physical limitations ( having bad knees, being 53 years old) and his fear of heights.
On 10/3/01, Linda received a copy of citation # 303706683.
Redi-Mix was cited for a REPEAT violation of 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(2):
The employer did not inform exposed employees, by posting danger signs or any other equally effective means, of the existence and location of and danger posed by a Permit Required Confined Space (PRCS).
Redi -Mix was also cited for a REPEAT Violation of 29 CFR 1910.146(d)(1): Under the Permit Required Confined Space (PRCS) program required by 29 CFR 1910.146(c)(4), the employer did not implement the measures necessary to prevent unauthorized entry.
We were shocked that there was no mention of Gary’s lack of safety equipment, nor the fact he was performing a task outside of his truck driving duties.
I called Jim Watson, the Compliance Officer at the Erie office who investigated this case and was told that Redi-Mix management told him that Gary went up there ON HIS OWN and was not assigned that task. I was appalled to find out that this statement of extremely unlikely veracity evidently abrogated Red-Mix of any culpability in not providing safety devices, supervision or training to Gary.
The attached letter dated 10/11/01 (and marked pages 100-102) to John Stranahan, Erie Area OSHA director outlined my concerns. Please note that I asked about a “notice of informal conference”.(file page 15) The date and times were left blank. I wanted to know why our family was not informed of the time so we could attend as “representative of employee” (i. e. a representative of Gary). This question has not been addressed.
To further explore this tragedy, Linda spoke with Officer Brown of the West Mead Township Police Department and obtained the police report of this accident. Officer Brown told Linda that despite the fact he instructed a Redi-Mix operations manager, John Shartle, to keep the Redi-Mix employees he planned to get statements from separated until he could speak with them the men were NOT separated but were together in his office. This led us to question whether it may have been “suggested” to these men not to vary from management’s unbelievable statement that Gary went up there on his own.
The police report (file pages 82-91) was very disturbing to us. My letter of 10/28/01 (file pages 78-81) to John Stranahan outlines my concerns. I will reiterate them as follows:
1. Cady’s statement(file page 89) that “both Cady and victim have been up there numerous times” and the Winkler statement (file page 91) “victim is mixer driver and duties include going up onto batch plant and cleaning up debris so turntable can move” suggest that Gary was, indeed, assigned that task and did not just go up there on his own.
2. Paragraph 6, Sequence 02, Page 2,(file page 87) Incident Supplemental Report states “The victim also did not have any safety equipment on nor were there any indications that the victim had been wearing any safety equipment at the time of the accident(Note: THERE WAS NO SAFETY EQUIPMENT ON THE TOP OF THE BUILDING) “ Do you not think that this total lack of safety equipment would merit mentioning even if you chose to believe the implausible statement by an individual WHO DID NOT EVEN GIVE A STATEMENT TO THE POLICE that Gary wandered up there on his own?
3. Cady’s statement( file page 89) that he “ pulled his mixer in to be loaded” suggests that the turntable (mentioned in item #1 above) may have been turned on and began moving so as to fill the mixer truck below while Gary was on the turntable cleaning it ( a duty Winkler in item #1 above stated was Gary’s) Cady’s statement that “Jim (presumably Fulmer?) went back to the office to shut off the power” further suggests this. It seems indeed possible the Gary was thrust into the hole by the movement of the turntable. Is there any indication that there are any safety features on that turntable that prevent it from being turned on when someone is up there removing debris from it?
4. Paragraph 9, Sequence 2, Page 1 Incident Supplemental Report(file page 86) states “ There was a definite mark on the steel wall inside the bin where the victim had impacted the wall . The mark was approx. 3 feet directly above where the victim came to rest in the bin” This suggests that rather than Gary just falling into the bin that he may have been thrust into it by the moving turntable and was slammed into its wall with significant momentum prior to hitting the ground. Perhaps this could explain the “ large gash on the right side of his forehead” described in Paragraph 5, sequence 2, page 2, (file page 87)Incident Supplemental Report. Again, is there any way of determining the process for preventing that turntable from moving when someone is up there removing debris from around it?
5. Winkler’s statement that he “felt pulse but victim was not breathing” suggests that it was realized rather quickly what had occurred (perhaps Gary being thrust in hole by turntable?) and that he got to Gary very soon after he hit the bottom of the bin. If story related by Fulmer to Watson and reported in Erie-Times-News “Worker dies at Meadville concrete plant” 8/16/01 , that Gary wandered up there on his own and was only discovered to be missing when he was needed for another task, I would presume he would have been dead for a while when discovered. He would be with out both respirations and pulse.
Furthermore, in the police report (page 88 of file) Officer Brown notes “After speaking to Mr. Watson and there being some DISCREPANCIES between what Keberts (aka Redi-Mix) had told him and what I told him during my investigation Mr. Watson requested a copy of my police report.” We found this a most disturbing statement and asked Mr. Stranahan about the nature of these discrepancies.
Mr. Stranahan did not respond to either of my letters, but in an article entitled “Redi-Mix pays penalty for worker death” Meadville Tribune 11/15/01,(attached) he dismissed my concerns as “minor”. Mr. Shartle, the operations manager who was unable to comply with Officer Brown’s request to keep the employees separated again asserted in this article that Gary “took it upon himself” to go up to the tower and stated that the reason Gary died was a “mystery” to him. I can only hope the members of the community who read this article recognized as preposterous the comments of Mr. Shartle and those of Mr. Stranahan as callous.
Finally, on 11/17/01, I received a letter dated 11/8/01 from Richard Soltan, OSHA Regional Director, who also wrote on the behalf of Mr. Stranahan, along with the “releaseable” records from the file. Mr. Soltan’s letter and the files raised even more concerns. It appears that Gary was up on that tower on other occasions. Please review the following:
1. Page 28 of file: one employee stated that he had seen Mr. Puleio just prior to the accident and asked him where he was going. Mr. Puleio replied “to clean the batch plant” If, indeed, it was improper for Gary to be up there why wouldn’t this violation of the rules reported?
2. Page 9 of file: “ Many drivers access area to clean spillage.”
3. Page 7 of file: “Other employees interviewed (mainly drivers) stated that they do not wear harnesses while in that area.”
4. Page 27 of file: “Mr Puleio stated…he would not go up on top of the batch plant if not required.”
In the Meadville Tribune , “Redi-Mix pays penalty for worker death”, 11/15/01, operations manager, John Shartle, is quoted “The guys that are trained in that area have that equipment. They are the ones to go up there. If (Puleio) had been instructed to go up there, he’d have the necessary equipment.” The above statements certainly make one question the veracity of Shartle’s claims. Even though no one ALIVE can say for certain if Gary was specifically assigned to go to the top of the tower on 8/15/01, the day he was killed, it certainly seems to be past practice to send drivers, including Gary, up there without safety harnesses.
If, as Shartle claims “the main work done up there is general maintenance and the workers who do that have the necessary safety equipment and skills” , then perhaps Redi-Mix could report to OSHA who was last assigned to go to the top of the tower to clean it prior to Gary’s death. Does there exist any record of who may have been “shoveling gravel off the hopper” on 8/14/01, the day Gary told Linda he had concerns for his safety? Would there be any documentation that this individual was one who had the necessary safety equipment and skills? Is there any indication of workers being cited for disobeying the company policy by deciding to go up there seemingly “on a whim” without being instructed to do so and without wearing any safety equipment?
In Mr. Soltan’s letter he stated “ there is a shutoff switch at the top of the catwalk which employees use to turn off electrical power to the turntable before they walk out onto the batch tower.” Was Gary ever instructed about the existence and function of this switch? Does page 64 of the file, a simplistic true-false test with Gary’s signature affixed, constitute proof he was oriented to this safety procedure? Since Gary was not one of , as Shartle phrased it, “ guys that are trained in that area” perhaps he was not informed to use it.
Mr. Soltan’s letter indicates that the OSHA inspector recalled that the discrepancies mentioned by Officer Brown involved 2 items: (1) whether or not Gary had a fear of heights, and (2) whether or not he was an energetic , self motivated employee or just a typical worker. All of us who knew Gary, knew he feared heights. I knew my brother quite well; at the end of his work day he would not take it upon himself to do risky unpleasant work that was not well paying. He was the father of 2 children, a 10 year old handicapped boy and a 3 year old boy. I know my brother would want to be home with his children. He was 53 years old and afraid of losing even the risky low paying job he held at Redi-Mix, by not following a supervisor’s orders, so he went to the top of that tower against his better judgment and died as a consequence of it.
At Gary’s funeral, a co-worker of his approached my sister and me and tearfully offered his condolences and stated “new guys always get the shit work”. Unfortunately we were too distraught to get his name or understand the significance of what he was telling us at the time.
I remain steadfast in my belief that Gary was assigned to go up there, with no safety equipment on 8/15/01, just as he and other drivers had been assigned on other days.
I realize, as Mr. Soltan states in his letter, that “the size of any OSHA fine can never equate to the injury sustained by the worker”. Similarly, I realize that Pennsylvania’s Workers Compensation Law is “no fault” and that no matter how much negligence is uncovered, the surviving spouse receives a fixed percentage of the victim’s wages. However, underlying these principles should be a just, thorough investigation not one that just perfunctorily accepts the egregious claims of the cited employer who would have a financial incentive to minimize any wrongdoing.
It certainly appears that OSHA accepts the implausible statements made by Redi-Mix management as irrefutable facts and ignores the views of Gary’s co-workers and family.
I feel that we should know ALL the statements of the employees in their entirety and have access to the videotaped statements. I especially want to see the statements that are blackened out on pages 29 and 36. What prompted an employee to make a statement on 8/22/01, seven days after the accident (page 36)?
As Gary is no longer alive and here to speak for himself to directly refute the implausible claims of Redi-Mix, we, his family, are his “representatives”. Recall earlier in this letter, I stated that the time and date of the “notice of informal conference” (file page 15) was never told to us despite our request to attend. We wanted to attend as a “representative of employee” (i.e. Gary). We have never been asked to give any input into this case.
Only after Redi-Mix paid a paltry $6000 fine and admitted NO WRONGDOING did we even get a response from Mr. Soltan and the “releaseable” file containing omissions of the very statements that could refute Redi-Mix’s claims.
We as Gary’s representatives appeal to you to send us the ENTIRE file.
I realize the purpose of the exemptions is to protect the identity of confidential sources and protect them from harassment, discrimination and retaliation. I can appreciate the consequences workers at Redi-Mix may face if they disagree with Mr. Shartle about the “mysterious” nature of Gary’s death. Certainly Mr. Shartle had ample time to identify those workers who may have been able to make statements to the police when he failed to separate them as Officer Brown instructed him.
Please give careful consideration to my appeal. I hope that this appeal will give you an opportunity to review this case and perhaps your conscience as well. I would appreciate any comments you have about the concerns outlined in this letter.
I hope to find peace and closure by knowing I did everything I could to find out the truthful circumstances surrounding my brother’s death despite the obfuscations of Redi-Mix. As a taxpaying US citizen, I hope for cooperation and accountability from those agencies my tax dollars fund.
Sincerely,
Donna Puleio Spadaro MD
309 Warren Rd.
Franklin, PA 16323
Home 814-432-5450
Work 814-437-7891
Enclosure: “Redi-Mix pays penalty for worker death” Meadville Tribune, 11/15/01
Letter from Richard Soltan, 11/8/01
File pages 7,9,15, 27, 28, 29, 36 , 64 78-91, 100-102
Pages 7,9, 15, 27, 28
These are pages from the "releasable" records sent to me. They are referenced in my FOIA appeal. Click to enlarge
pages 29, 36, 64, 78-91, 100-102
These are pages from the "releasable" records. They are referenced in the above FOIA appeal. Click to enlarge
PAGES 78-91= Letter to Stranahan 10/28/01 plus West Mead Police Report(82-91)
PAGES 100- 102 Letter to stranahan 10/11/01
PAGES 78-91= Letter to Stranahan 10/28/01 plus West Mead Police Report(82-91)
PAGES 100- 102 Letter to stranahan 10/11/01
Letter to Occupational Safety and Health Review 11/29/01
Phil English asked the Occupational Safety and Health Review to address my concerns. I contacted this agency to expedite matters.
Occupational Safety and Review Commission
Representative Phil English ( Gary was his constituent) contacted the Ocuupational Safety and Review Commission. They could offer no help as Gary's case did not involve a "contested work place inspection". How do families of dead workers contest the findings begs to be answered.
Click to Enlarge
Click to Enlarge
Letter to Occupational safety and Health Review Commission 12/29/01
I sent the FIOA appeal certified mail on 11/23/01. I had not received the return receipt by 12/29/01. I asked Ms. Randle of the Occupational Safety And Health Review Commission for help. I ASKED WHAT OTHER COURSES OF ACTION WERE AVAILABLE.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Soltan020402
Soltan says "there is nothing else we can do" OSHA certainly seem to be able to do a lot for corporations. Corporations routinely "negotiate" down fines in a process called abatement.
undefined
undefined
Soltan letter to Congressman John Peterson
Richard Soltan's "explanation" to Representative John Peterson who contacted him on my behalf.
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Letter to Richard Soltan 2/13/2002
I thank Soltan for his sympathy but told him Stranahan's callous dismissal of my concerns as MINOR in the newspaper had reached a far wider audience
2/13/02
Richard D. Soltan
Regional Administrator
OSHA
The Curtis Center
170 S. Independence Mall
Suite 740 West
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3309
Dear Mr. Soltan:
I am writing in response to your letter of 2/4/02 in which you again state that OSHA was not able to determine “exactly what happened” in the death of my brother, Gary Puleio, on 8/15/01 at Meadville Redi-Mix. I would certainly find this more plausible if I indeed knew all the findings of the investigation.
As you may know, some records of the investigation have been denied to me. I have filed an appeal to the Solicitor of Labor under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain these records (APPEAL # 020065). As the attached letter from Bruce Cohen, Deputy Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel, states the number of appeals is “substantial” so it may be a long time before my appeal is acted upon. Perhaps when it is, I will feel that the concerns raised in my appeal letter have been adequately addressed. By obtaining these records, I plan to find out the truthful circumstances surrounding my brother’s death despite the obfuscations of Meadville Redi-Mix which the local OSHA investigators accepted as irrefutable facts.
I do appreciate you responding to me all these months after my brother’s death, unlike Mr. Stranahan. He was certainly quick to respond and be quoted in the Meadville Tribune , in which he dismissed the discrepancies noted in the police report of my brother’s death as “minor”. Unfortunately for OSHA, his callous sounding comments reached a far wider audience of Gary’s co-workers, friends and family who reside in northwestern PA than your empathetic ones can do now.
I do realize that OSHA fines are not assessed as punishment for accidents. As a tax paying citizen in a free society, I do expect to have access to all the records concerning my brother’s death from an agency which is funded by my tax dollars and those of workers like my brother who perform risky jobs daily.
Sincerely,
Donna Puleio Spadaro MD
309 Warren Rd
Franklin, PA 16323
814-432-5450
814-437-7891
Enclosure: letter 1/9/02 Bruce Cohen, Deputy Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel
CC:Bruce Cohen, Deputy Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel, FOIA/PA Appeals Unit, Suite N-2428, 200 Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20210 ATTN APPEAL # 020065
CC:The Honorable John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor, US Department of Labor/OSHA, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. 20210
CC: The Honorable John Peterson, 115 West Spring St. Titusville PA 16354
2/13/02
Richard D. Soltan
Regional Administrator
OSHA
The Curtis Center
170 S. Independence Mall
Suite 740 West
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3309
Dear Mr. Soltan:
I am writing in response to your letter of 2/4/02 in which you again state that OSHA was not able to determine “exactly what happened” in the death of my brother, Gary Puleio, on 8/15/01 at Meadville Redi-Mix. I would certainly find this more plausible if I indeed knew all the findings of the investigation.
As you may know, some records of the investigation have been denied to me. I have filed an appeal to the Solicitor of Labor under the Freedom of Information Act to obtain these records (APPEAL # 020065). As the attached letter from Bruce Cohen, Deputy Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel, states the number of appeals is “substantial” so it may be a long time before my appeal is acted upon. Perhaps when it is, I will feel that the concerns raised in my appeal letter have been adequately addressed. By obtaining these records, I plan to find out the truthful circumstances surrounding my brother’s death despite the obfuscations of Meadville Redi-Mix which the local OSHA investigators accepted as irrefutable facts.
I do appreciate you responding to me all these months after my brother’s death, unlike Mr. Stranahan. He was certainly quick to respond and be quoted in the Meadville Tribune , in which he dismissed the discrepancies noted in the police report of my brother’s death as “minor”. Unfortunately for OSHA, his callous sounding comments reached a far wider audience of Gary’s co-workers, friends and family who reside in northwestern PA than your empathetic ones can do now.
I do realize that OSHA fines are not assessed as punishment for accidents. As a tax paying citizen in a free society, I do expect to have access to all the records concerning my brother’s death from an agency which is funded by my tax dollars and those of workers like my brother who perform risky jobs daily.
Sincerely,
Donna Puleio Spadaro MD
309 Warren Rd
Franklin, PA 16323
814-432-5450
814-437-7891
Enclosure: letter 1/9/02 Bruce Cohen, Deputy Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel
CC:Bruce Cohen, Deputy Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel, FOIA/PA Appeals Unit, Suite N-2428, 200 Constitution Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20210 ATTN APPEAL # 020065
CC:The Honorable John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor, US Department of Labor/OSHA, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. 20210
CC: The Honorable John Peterson, 115 West Spring St. Titusville PA 16354
Shapiro040402
Shapiro responding for Eugene scalia, Solicitor of Labor states he is sending my FIOA appeal to FAIRFAX to review the issues outside of the scope of the FIOA appeal
Monday, June 25, 2007
Spadaro to Fairfax 4/13/2002
I write to Fairfax telling him I received Shapiro's letter and await his review. NOTE that is already APRIL 2002, SIX MONTHS after Gary was killed. According to OSHA law one has only SIX months to contest fines.
4/13/02
Mr. Richard Fairfax
Director of Compliance Programs
OSHA
Room N-3603
200 Constitution Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20210
Dear Mr. Fairfax:
I am writing in regard to a letter I received from Mr. Robert A. Shapiro, Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel, in which he informed me that he has denied my appeal (FIOA Appeal No. 020065) for records pertaining to the OSHA investigation of my brother’s death and has referred the case to you for review and reconsideration of the substantive issues raised by my appeal. I am pleased that this case will finally be reexamined and remain hopeful that my concerns about the adequacy and thoroughness of the investigation will be addressed.
Mr. Shapiro’s letter indicates that he has forwarded you a copy of my appeal letter which outlines my concerns. I am enclosing additional correspondence for your review. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
I anxiously await your review of this case.
Sincerely,
Donna Puleio Spadaro MD.
309 Warren Rd
Franklin PA 16323
814-437-7891
814-432-5450
CC: The Honorable John Peterson, 115 West Spring St. Titusville, PA 16354
CC: Senator Rick Santorum, 1705 West 26th St., Erie, PA 16508
CC: Senator Arlen Specter, Room 107, Federal Building, Erie, PA 16501
CC: The Honorable Phil English, 312 Chestnut St. Suite 114, Meadville, Pa 16335
CC: Robert A. Shapiro, Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel, U. S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20210
CC: The Honorable John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor/OSHA, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210
4/13/02
Mr. Richard Fairfax
Director of Compliance Programs
OSHA
Room N-3603
200 Constitution Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20210
Dear Mr. Fairfax:
I am writing in regard to a letter I received from Mr. Robert A. Shapiro, Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel, in which he informed me that he has denied my appeal (FIOA Appeal No. 020065) for records pertaining to the OSHA investigation of my brother’s death and has referred the case to you for review and reconsideration of the substantive issues raised by my appeal. I am pleased that this case will finally be reexamined and remain hopeful that my concerns about the adequacy and thoroughness of the investigation will be addressed.
Mr. Shapiro’s letter indicates that he has forwarded you a copy of my appeal letter which outlines my concerns. I am enclosing additional correspondence for your review. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
I anxiously await your review of this case.
Sincerely,
Donna Puleio Spadaro MD.
309 Warren Rd
Franklin PA 16323
814-437-7891
814-432-5450
CC: The Honorable John Peterson, 115 West Spring St. Titusville, PA 16354
CC: Senator Rick Santorum, 1705 West 26th St., Erie, PA 16508
CC: Senator Arlen Specter, Room 107, Federal Building, Erie, PA 16501
CC: The Honorable Phil English, 312 Chestnut St. Suite 114, Meadville, Pa 16335
CC: Robert A. Shapiro, Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel, U. S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20210
CC: The Honorable John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor/OSHA, 200 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20210
Soltan to Specter 05/24/02
I asked Senator Arlen Specter for assistance. He contacted Soltan. All Soltan did was send him Shapiro's letter of 4/4/02. That is the letter in which he stated Fairfax was going to review the issues "outside of the FOIA" denial
Spadaro to Henshaw 07/25/2002
Fairfax DID NOT DO ANYTHING to review the case. In response to Senator Specter's inquiry on my behalf he just sent an old letter of 11/08/2001. I wrote to Henshaw about it.
Spadaro to Shapiro 07/25/2002
I wrote to Shapiro to let him know Fairfax did not even have the courtesy or concern to review the case as he (Shapiro) had instructed him to do. I also told him Fairfax never even bothered to contact me by this point. It is now JULY, 3 months after Shapiro's letter and 11 months since Gary was killed.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Spadaro to Fairfax 07/25/02
Fairfax never even had the courtesy to respond to my certified letter. In response to Senator Specter's inquiry on my behalf, OSHA just resent Soltan's old letter of 11/08/2001.
I expressed my dissapointment to Fairfax.
I expressed my dissapointment to Fairfax.
Fairfax to Spadaro 09/04/02
FIVE MONTHS after Shapiro asked him to review the case, Fairfax finally answers with some thing other than just resending an old letter of 11/08/2001. Gary is now dead 13 months. Of course he concludes everything was done appropriately in the first place.
FIVE MONTHS after my letter of 4/13/02 , and after being contacted by Senators Specter and Santorum, Fairfax FINALLY answered my certified letter with this letter again reiterating the same implausible conclusions...that as there were no eyewitnesses, OSHA accepted Redi-Mix's claim that Gary just 'wandered up there on his own"
FIVE MONTHS after my letter of 4/13/02 , and after being contacted by Senators Specter and Santorum, Fairfax FINALLY answered my certified letter with this letter again reiterating the same implausible conclusions...that as there were no eyewitnesses, OSHA accepted Redi-Mix's claim that Gary just 'wandered up there on his own"
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Spadaro to Fairfax 9/25/02
This letter will outline my attempts to find justice for Gary. I point out to Fairfax that it took FIVE MONTHS to resond to Shapiro's request for a review (sent in 4/2002 after Gary was already dead 6 months) OSHA stated that no additional action can be taken because the OSH Act requires that any citations or penalties must be issued within 6 months of the “alleged violation”. If there is a 6 month cut off after the "alleged violation" why did it take till 4/2002 (6 months after Gary was killed, for Shapiro to ask Fairfax to review the case and then another FIVE MONTHS to get an answer. In other words it was hopeless to expect any results from the very beginning.
Donna Spadaro
9/25/02
Mr. Richard Fairfax
Directorate of Enforcement Programs
OSHA
Room N-3606
200 Constitution Ave, NW
Washington, DC. 20210
Dear Mr. Fairfax:
I am writing in response to your letter of 9/4/02 regarding your review of the case file relating to the OSHA investigation of the death of my brother, Gary Puleio. In this letter you stated it was me who asked you to review this case when actually it was Mr. Robert Shapiro, Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel, who asked you to do this on 4/4/02. I sent you a certified letter on 4/13/02 requesting the results of your review. I was quite surprised to get a response more than FIVE MONTHS later.
Please allow me to summarize the events that led to you sending me this letter. On 8/15/01, my brother , Gary Puleio, fell 20 feet to his death from a concrete tower at Meadville Redi-Mix , where he had been employed only three months as a truck driver. He was up on the tower alone, not wearing any safety equipment, performing a job outside of the scope of his truck driving responsibilities.
Redi-Mix’s operation manager was quoted in the Meadville Tribune (11/15/01) that Gary “took it upon himself” to go up to the tower alone and that the reason Gary died was a “mystery” to him. T he West Mead Township police report of the accident noted that the OSHA compliance officer requested a copy of their report because there were discrepancies between what Redi-Mix told him and what the police were told.
To further explore this “mystery” and these discrepancies and to inquire about attending an “informal conference” concerning this case that was noted in the OSHA citation to Redi-Mix, I wrote to John Stranahan, Erie Area OSHA Director on 10/11/01 and again on 10/28/01. Although he never answered my letters and never informed me of the scheduling of the conference, he quickly and callously dismissed my concerns about the discrepancies as “minor” in the Meadville Tribune (11/15/01) .
OSHA claimed it could not determine if, as a new employee, Gary was assigned the unpleasant “scut work” task of cleaning the tower at the end of his driving shift or if he just “wandered up there on his own” as implausibly claimed by Redi-Mix. It seemed OSHA just perfunctorily accepted the egregious claims of an individual who would have financial incentive to minimize any wrongdoing. This evidently served as an excuse for the lack of safety equipment and supervision.
Therefore, the company was cited for repeat violations for not posting danger signs at a confined space and not implementing measures to prevent unauthorized entry. After admitting no wrongdoing , Redi-Mix paid a $6000 fine.
Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) , I did obtain the “releasable” files on this case. OSHA did not release the records in their entirety, citing exemptions to protect confidential sources from “ discrimination and retaliation.” I can certainly appreciate the consequences workers might face if they disagreed with management about the “mysterious” nature of Gary’s death. These “releasable files” contained information that refuted Redi-Mix’s claim that Gary “ wandered up there on his own”
My appeal to obtain the complete records was denied by Mr. Shapiro in his letter of 4/4/02 but he did state that a review of the substantive issues would be performed by you. Thus, I do indeed realize that the review you were asked to do by Mr. Shapiro did not involve the denial of the FIOA appeal but the substantive issues of the case which I feel were numerous and delineated briefly above.
I remained hopeful that this review would occur in a timely manner and I sent you a certified letter on 4/13/02 stating my interest in your findings. In May, I did receive a copy of a letter from the office of Senator Arlen Specter that was written by John Henshaw. Evidently Mr. Henshaw responded to Senator Specter’s inquiry on my behalf by contacting you and then you contacted Richard Soltan, Regional Administrator in Philadelphia. Mr. Soltan, in turn, sent a copy of a letter he had written to me, dated 11/8/01 to Senator Specter.
Therefore, I assumed that NO review was done by you and you simply asked Mr. Soltan to forward this old letter to Senator Specter. If reissuing that old letter was all Mr. Shapiro expected, I do not believe he would have referred the case to you for reconsideration.
I suppose when I again contacted Mr. Shapiro and you in July to see if my assumption was true you responded with your letter of 9/4/02.
In this letter, sent FIVE MONTHS after you were asked to review this case by Mr. Shapiro, you stated that no additional action can be taken because the OSH Act requires that any citations or penalties must be issued within 6 months of the “alleged violation”.
I have indeed been trying to get this case reviewed ever since I received Mr. Soltan’s letter of 11/8/01 and the “releasable” records under the FIOA. In Mr. Soltan’s letter, there was no mention of how to get a case reviewed when the conclusions are inaccurate and unsatisfactory. Mr. Soltan mentioned only that I had a right to appeal the FIOA denial so I pursued that approach as a first step to get this case reevaluated. My appeal was sent 11/23/01, less than 6 months after the “alleged violation”, as my brother’s killing is euphemistically called.
I also contacted Representative Phil English ( as my brother was a constituent of his) for assistance in getting this case reviewed. Representative English wrote to Thomasine Rodgers of the Occupational Safety and Health Review for more information on 11/21/01 ( less than 6 months after the “alleged violation” ) and sent me a copy of his letter (enclosed).
I then wrote to Ms Rodgers on 11/29/01 ( again less than 6 months after the “alleged violation”) acknowledging that I received a copy of Rep. English’s letter requesting her assistance in addressing my concerns about the investigation (enclosed).
Representative English sent me a copy of a letter dated 12/114/01 ( again less than 6 months after the “alleged violation”) from Patricia Randle, Executive Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. She stated that as my letter did not involve a “contested workplace inspection” that her agency had no involvement or information pertaining to the incident or issues addressed in my letter. She told Representative English that his correspondence would be forwarded to John Henshaw.(enclosed)
On 12/29/01 ( again less than 6 months after the “alleged violation”) I wrote to Ms Randle to thank her for forwarding this letter to John Henshaw and to ask her IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER COURSES OF ACTION I COULD PURSUE AT THIS TIME TO HAVE MY CONCERNS ADDRESSED. I also sent a copy of this letter to the Solicitor of Labor, John Henshaw and Richard Soltan. (enclosed).
I heard nothing further from ANY of these individuals. On 1/9/02 ( again less than 6 months after the “alleged violation”) I received a letter from Bruce Cohen, Deputy Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel stating that the number of appeals awaiting review was “ very substantial” and that it may take long time.
Finally, on 4/4/02, Mr. Shapiro wrote to say he was referring the case to you for review. Of course, by then more than 6 months had passed since the “alleged violation” and no further action could be taken. An additional FIVE MONTHS passed before I received your letter informing me of this fact.
This illustrates how even with extreme diligence, family members of workers killed on the job have no way of effectively challenging fatuous conclusions that totally misstate the problem and inaccurately reflect the wrongdoing.
In contrast, the “alleged violators” seem to be quite facile at negotiating with OSHA to get penalties reduced. I have written a Letter to the Editor that speaks to this injustice and I am enclosing it for your consideration and reflection.
I realize that OSHA fines are not issued as punishments, and I agree with you that no amount of money can ever compensate for the loss of life. However the issuance of trivial fines and citations that misstate the problem results in neither accountability nor acknowledgement by the offending company and no increased attention and diligence to safety issues that could avert further tragedies.
If OSHA investigations are to have any validity this imbalance between the access that corporate “alleged violators” have and that of families ,whose tax dollars fund OSHA and who seek answers, must be corrected.
Please explain to me how I could have gotten this case re-evaluated in a more timely manner so that I would not have missed the 6 month cut-off . In light of this 6 month cut-off, is it typical to have a FIVE MONTH delay in responding to requests for a review?
Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate your input.
Sincerely,
Donna P. Spadaro, MD
Enclosures:
Letter 11/21/01 Representative English to Ms. Rodgers
Letter 11/29/01 Spadaro to Ms. Rodgers
Letter 12/14/01 Ms. Randle to Representative English
Letter 12/29/01 Spadaro to Ms. Randle ( CC: Solicitor of Labor, John Henshaw, Richard Soltan)
Letter to Editor 9/20/02 “OSHA investigations not solving problems” Meadville Tribune
CC: Robert A. Shapiro, Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel, U. S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20210
CC: The Honorable John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor/OSHA, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210
CC: Richard Soltan, OSHA, The Curtis Center, Suite 740-W, 170 S. Independence Mall West, Phila, PA 19106
CC: Ms Patricia Randle, Executive Director, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 1120 20th St. NW, Ninth Floor, Washington, DC, 20036-3419
Donna Spadaro
9/25/02
Mr. Richard Fairfax
Directorate of Enforcement Programs
OSHA
Room N-3606
200 Constitution Ave, NW
Washington, DC. 20210
Dear Mr. Fairfax:
I am writing in response to your letter of 9/4/02 regarding your review of the case file relating to the OSHA investigation of the death of my brother, Gary Puleio. In this letter you stated it was me who asked you to review this case when actually it was Mr. Robert Shapiro, Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel, who asked you to do this on 4/4/02. I sent you a certified letter on 4/13/02 requesting the results of your review. I was quite surprised to get a response more than FIVE MONTHS later.
Please allow me to summarize the events that led to you sending me this letter. On 8/15/01, my brother , Gary Puleio, fell 20 feet to his death from a concrete tower at Meadville Redi-Mix , where he had been employed only three months as a truck driver. He was up on the tower alone, not wearing any safety equipment, performing a job outside of the scope of his truck driving responsibilities.
Redi-Mix’s operation manager was quoted in the Meadville Tribune (11/15/01) that Gary “took it upon himself” to go up to the tower alone and that the reason Gary died was a “mystery” to him. T he West Mead Township police report of the accident noted that the OSHA compliance officer requested a copy of their report because there were discrepancies between what Redi-Mix told him and what the police were told.
To further explore this “mystery” and these discrepancies and to inquire about attending an “informal conference” concerning this case that was noted in the OSHA citation to Redi-Mix, I wrote to John Stranahan, Erie Area OSHA Director on 10/11/01 and again on 10/28/01. Although he never answered my letters and never informed me of the scheduling of the conference, he quickly and callously dismissed my concerns about the discrepancies as “minor” in the Meadville Tribune (11/15/01) .
OSHA claimed it could not determine if, as a new employee, Gary was assigned the unpleasant “scut work” task of cleaning the tower at the end of his driving shift or if he just “wandered up there on his own” as implausibly claimed by Redi-Mix. It seemed OSHA just perfunctorily accepted the egregious claims of an individual who would have financial incentive to minimize any wrongdoing. This evidently served as an excuse for the lack of safety equipment and supervision.
Therefore, the company was cited for repeat violations for not posting danger signs at a confined space and not implementing measures to prevent unauthorized entry. After admitting no wrongdoing , Redi-Mix paid a $6000 fine.
Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) , I did obtain the “releasable” files on this case. OSHA did not release the records in their entirety, citing exemptions to protect confidential sources from “ discrimination and retaliation.” I can certainly appreciate the consequences workers might face if they disagreed with management about the “mysterious” nature of Gary’s death. These “releasable files” contained information that refuted Redi-Mix’s claim that Gary “ wandered up there on his own”
My appeal to obtain the complete records was denied by Mr. Shapiro in his letter of 4/4/02 but he did state that a review of the substantive issues would be performed by you. Thus, I do indeed realize that the review you were asked to do by Mr. Shapiro did not involve the denial of the FIOA appeal but the substantive issues of the case which I feel were numerous and delineated briefly above.
I remained hopeful that this review would occur in a timely manner and I sent you a certified letter on 4/13/02 stating my interest in your findings. In May, I did receive a copy of a letter from the office of Senator Arlen Specter that was written by John Henshaw. Evidently Mr. Henshaw responded to Senator Specter’s inquiry on my behalf by contacting you and then you contacted Richard Soltan, Regional Administrator in Philadelphia. Mr. Soltan, in turn, sent a copy of a letter he had written to me, dated 11/8/01 to Senator Specter.
Therefore, I assumed that NO review was done by you and you simply asked Mr. Soltan to forward this old letter to Senator Specter. If reissuing that old letter was all Mr. Shapiro expected, I do not believe he would have referred the case to you for reconsideration.
I suppose when I again contacted Mr. Shapiro and you in July to see if my assumption was true you responded with your letter of 9/4/02.
In this letter, sent FIVE MONTHS after you were asked to review this case by Mr. Shapiro, you stated that no additional action can be taken because the OSH Act requires that any citations or penalties must be issued within 6 months of the “alleged violation”.
I have indeed been trying to get this case reviewed ever since I received Mr. Soltan’s letter of 11/8/01 and the “releasable” records under the FIOA. In Mr. Soltan’s letter, there was no mention of how to get a case reviewed when the conclusions are inaccurate and unsatisfactory. Mr. Soltan mentioned only that I had a right to appeal the FIOA denial so I pursued that approach as a first step to get this case reevaluated. My appeal was sent 11/23/01, less than 6 months after the “alleged violation”, as my brother’s killing is euphemistically called.
I also contacted Representative Phil English ( as my brother was a constituent of his) for assistance in getting this case reviewed. Representative English wrote to Thomasine Rodgers of the Occupational Safety and Health Review for more information on 11/21/01 ( less than 6 months after the “alleged violation” ) and sent me a copy of his letter (enclosed).
I then wrote to Ms Rodgers on 11/29/01 ( again less than 6 months after the “alleged violation”) acknowledging that I received a copy of Rep. English’s letter requesting her assistance in addressing my concerns about the investigation (enclosed).
Representative English sent me a copy of a letter dated 12/114/01 ( again less than 6 months after the “alleged violation”) from Patricia Randle, Executive Director of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. She stated that as my letter did not involve a “contested workplace inspection” that her agency had no involvement or information pertaining to the incident or issues addressed in my letter. She told Representative English that his correspondence would be forwarded to John Henshaw.(enclosed)
On 12/29/01 ( again less than 6 months after the “alleged violation”) I wrote to Ms Randle to thank her for forwarding this letter to John Henshaw and to ask her IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER COURSES OF ACTION I COULD PURSUE AT THIS TIME TO HAVE MY CONCERNS ADDRESSED. I also sent a copy of this letter to the Solicitor of Labor, John Henshaw and Richard Soltan. (enclosed).
I heard nothing further from ANY of these individuals. On 1/9/02 ( again less than 6 months after the “alleged violation”) I received a letter from Bruce Cohen, Deputy Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel stating that the number of appeals awaiting review was “ very substantial” and that it may take long time.
Finally, on 4/4/02, Mr. Shapiro wrote to say he was referring the case to you for review. Of course, by then more than 6 months had passed since the “alleged violation” and no further action could be taken. An additional FIVE MONTHS passed before I received your letter informing me of this fact.
This illustrates how even with extreme diligence, family members of workers killed on the job have no way of effectively challenging fatuous conclusions that totally misstate the problem and inaccurately reflect the wrongdoing.
In contrast, the “alleged violators” seem to be quite facile at negotiating with OSHA to get penalties reduced. I have written a Letter to the Editor that speaks to this injustice and I am enclosing it for your consideration and reflection.
I realize that OSHA fines are not issued as punishments, and I agree with you that no amount of money can ever compensate for the loss of life. However the issuance of trivial fines and citations that misstate the problem results in neither accountability nor acknowledgement by the offending company and no increased attention and diligence to safety issues that could avert further tragedies.
If OSHA investigations are to have any validity this imbalance between the access that corporate “alleged violators” have and that of families ,whose tax dollars fund OSHA and who seek answers, must be corrected.
Please explain to me how I could have gotten this case re-evaluated in a more timely manner so that I would not have missed the 6 month cut-off . In light of this 6 month cut-off, is it typical to have a FIVE MONTH delay in responding to requests for a review?
Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate your input.
Sincerely,
Donna P. Spadaro, MD
Enclosures:
Letter 11/21/01 Representative English to Ms. Rodgers
Letter 11/29/01 Spadaro to Ms. Rodgers
Letter 12/14/01 Ms. Randle to Representative English
Letter 12/29/01 Spadaro to Ms. Randle ( CC: Solicitor of Labor, John Henshaw, Richard Soltan)
Letter to Editor 9/20/02 “OSHA investigations not solving problems” Meadville Tribune
CC: Robert A. Shapiro, Associate Solicitor for Legislation and Legal Counsel, U. S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC 20210
CC: The Honorable John Henshaw, Assistant Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor/OSHA, 200 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20210
CC: Richard Soltan, OSHA, The Curtis Center, Suite 740-W, 170 S. Independence Mall West, Phila, PA 19106
CC: Ms Patricia Randle, Executive Director, Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, 1120 20th St. NW, Ninth Floor, Washington, DC, 20036-3419
Henshaw to Santorum 09/30/03
Even though it took Fairfax FIVE MONTHS to even bother to respond to Shapiro's request to review the case, Henshaw assures Senator Santorum that OSHA did everything properly!! Heck of a job!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
