Worker Hit by Scaffold Component Underscores Protective Measures Needed at Elevated Jobsites

A commonsense principle of scaffold safety is to protect not only those working on the elevated platforms, but also those working beneath them. A recent decision before the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission in Secretary of Labor v. Precision Refractory Services, LLC reinforces this obligation after a serious incident left a worker injured on a Florida construction site. The unfortunate injury serves as a reminder that even seemingly routine work, like ground-level cleanup, can become hazardous in the absence of proper protections.

Precision Refractory Services, LLC performs fireproofing and refractory work that consists of laying insulated brick or fireproofing inside furnaces, boilers and other structures, employing approximately 100 individuals. PRS had contracted with the general contractor, Koch, to perform refractory work inside the furnace of a property in Cantonment, FL. PRS’s work here consisted of laying fireproof brick inside the furnace. Koch had also contracted with Coastal Industries Services, Inc. to erect and maintain the scaffold which PRS utilized to perform its work. The furnaces were large cylindrical concrete structures for which PRS workers needed scaffolds. Specifically, PRS employees used the scaffold to lay fireproof brick inside the furnace, working in shifts around the clock. The scaffolds consisted of a system of eight decks high, with six feet separating each deck. On November 12, 2022, a PRS worker was assigned to clean up debris beneath a scaffold at a furnace. While several workers were stationed on upper decks stacking bricks, the injured employee was stationed on the ground level directly beneath the scaffold and exposed to falling debris. During this shift, a metal scaffold component, described as a three-inch pipe, rolled off the upper level of the scaffold and struck the employee’s arm, resulting in a fractured wrist and hospitalization.

Following the mandatory injury reporting by PRS, OSHA dispatched a Compliance Safety and Health Officer to investigate. The inspection led to two citations under the OSHA’s scaffold safety standards. The first citation alleged that PRS allowed unauthorized alterations to the scaffold without the supervision of a competent person (who is able to capable of recognizing predictable hazards and who had authority to take prompt remedial measures).

The Secretary of Labor alleged that PRS employees had altered the scaffolds to place bricks and removed toeboards that Costal had installed. The second citation alleged PRS failed to protect employees from falling objects by not barring access to the area below the scaffold.

After a hearing, the judge vacated the first citation due to insufficient evidence that PRS employees had altered the scaffold. The Secretary’s reliance on hearsay statements from other contractors—without live testimony or corroborating documentation—did not satisfy the evidentiary burden. The court noted that the hearsay lacked sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness and that PRS employees likely lacked the tools or authority to alter the scaffold while “Coastal management had motive to shift the blame.”

The second citation alleged a violation of the scaffold safety standard that requires employers to prevent access to areas below scaffolds when there is a danger of objects falling such as tools or materials. The federal safety rules provide several alternative means of compliance, including toeboards, netting, canopies, or barricades.

In this case, no such protective measures were implemented despite PRS supervisors being fully aware that workers were stationed above. Objects that included bricks, tools and other “destructive objects” could fall, causing serious injury. Practically speaking, PRS employees worked with small hand tools such as trowels and saws that could easily fall.

Significantly, PRS’s own Job Safety Analyses identified falling object hazards, and its supervisors acknowledged the risk during pre-shift briefings. Yet the only mitigation efforts involved verbal warnings but not physical safeguards. The judge emphasized that actual injury, such as the one sustained here, is not required to prove exposure. The lack of any form of physical protection and the employee’s placement directly beneath active work areas constituted a clear violation.

Although PRS conceded non-compliance, it attempted to shift responsibility by arguing it had no control over the scaffold’s configuration that was erected and maintained by Coastal. A toeobard would have prevented the accident and since they could not have installed one, they did not violate the standard. The Judge firmly rejected this argument, noting that as the “exposing employer,” PRS was nonetheless obligated to protect its own employees. Even if PRS could not modify the scaffold, it retained the authority and responsibility to prohibit employees from entering dangerous areas. Where feasible, employers must take reasonable alternative measures to protect workers, such as restricting access to hazardous zones.

The Judge affirmed this second citation, constituting a serious violation, and imposed a $7,000 penalty.

This case illustrates the importance of proactive and layered safety measures in elevated work environments:

• Barricade or restrict access to areas below scaffolds whenever there is a risk of falling objects.
• Use toeboards, debris nets, or canopies as appropriate, especially in multi-level work zones.
• Train supervisors and workers to recognize and respond to falling object hazards but not just with warnings, but with physical protections.
• Ensure documentation of daily hazard analyses and confirm that mitigations are actually implemented.
• Scaffold safety is not limited to those working on the structure but it also extends to anyone who may be working in their proximity.

 

If you would like more information regarding this topic please contact Costas Cyprus at ccyprus@wbgllp.com or call (914) 607-6445