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
Gary Anthony Puleio
Showing posts with label Fairfax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fairfax. Show all posts
Monday, June 25, 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
