Occupational safety-related citations; Requirement that an employer control hazardous energy related to the servicing or maintenance of machines & equipment; 29 CFR § 1910.147(a)(1)(i) (also referred to as Part 85); Whether an issue was waived; Minor-tool-change exception; § 1910.147(a)(2)(ii); Gravity as an energy source; § 1910.147(b); Sufficiency of an administrative agency’s final decision; MCL 24.285; Michigan Occupational Safety & Health Administration (MIOSHA); Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The court affirmed the circuit court’s order affirming the amended decision of the Board of defendant-MIOSHA, upholding citations issued to plaintiff-Argent “after one of its employees injured his arm in a press machine.” The ALJ found “that, at the time of the accident, the operator’s conduct did not meet the definition of servicing or maintenance, and therefore Part 85 did not apply. MIOSHA objected to the proposed decision on the basis that the operator had been setting up the press, and Argent countered that the ALJ’s decision was well-reasoned and supported by law. The Board ultimately reversed the ALJ’s decision, ruling that the operator had been servicing the press by setting up the press.” The court concluded “that, because Argent was not the party objecting to the proposal for decision and argued generally that the ALJ’s decision should be upheld,” it did not waive any issues. But this did “not render Argent’s issues entirely preserved.” Because it “did not argue before the circuit court that Part 85 is entirely inapplicable,” this issue was not preserved for the court’s “review. However, the remainder of Argent’s issues on appeal are preserved.” Argent asked the court “to determine whether the Board’s decision sufficiently identified the legal authority, testimony, exhibits, or portions of the record to support its findings of fact or conclusions of law.” The court concluded “that the circuit court properly applied the law when determining that the Board’s decision was sufficient.” The court held that the “circuit court did not incorrectly apply MCL 24.285. Further, the Board’s decision is sufficient for the purposes of our review.” It also concluded “that the circuit court applied the correct legal principles when reviewing the Board’s decision to apply” § 1910.147 and did not err in “applying the substantial-evidence test to the Board’s findings. Even though the injured employee was not specifically a maintenance employee and was injured during production operations, Part 85 applied because he was required to place his hands within the machine’s zone of danger to adjust or unjam the press.” And it applied the correct legal principles in upholding the Board’s determination that the minor-tool-change exception did not apply.