AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The New Mexico Environment Department’s Occupational Health and Safety Bureau issued four citations to McCarthy Building Companies NM, Inc. for alleged safety standard violations related to scaffolds. The New Mexico Occupational Health and Safety Review Commission vacated these citations, a decision later reversed by the district court, which found the Commission should have considered certain witness interview transcripts and that the Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Reversed the Commission's decision, concluding it should have considered witness interview transcripts and that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant-Respondent (Bureau): Argued that the evidence presented at the administrative hearing was sufficient to prove the alleged violations and that McCarthy failed to take reasonable care to detect or prevent the overloading of the scaffolding.
• Intervenor-Petitioner (McCarthy): Contended that, even as a controlling employer under the federal Multi-Employer Citation Policy, it was not citable for the violations at the time of the scaffold collapse.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Commission erred in vacating the citations against McCarthy for alleged safety standard violations related to scaffolds.
• Whether the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's order and affirmed the Commission's decision to vacate the citations against McCarthy.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals conducted a review similar to that of the district court, focusing on whether the Commission's decision was supported by substantial evidence and complied with the law. The Bureau's main argument on appeal was that the evidence was insufficient to support the Commission's decision, a point with which the Court of Appeals disagreed. The Court found that substantial evidence supported the Commission's conclusion that McCarthy did not know or have reason to know of the safety violations and thus satisfied its duty of care. The Court emphasized the deference owed to the Commission as the expert body in workplace safety and the fact-finder in this case. The Bureau's argument that the district court's reversal should be affirmed because McCarthy had not shown the order to be an abuse of discretion was rejected, with the Court clarifying that the burden of establishing error was on the Bureau, not McCarthy. The Court concluded that the Commission's decision was based on substantial evidence, leading to the reversal of the district court's order and the affirmation of the Commission's decision (paras 1-12).