One of the most significant lessons from the decision concerns the distinction between an operator being certified and an employer determining that the operator is actually qualified to operate particular crane equipment. Here, the decedent operator did possess a crane certification from the National Commission for Certification of Crane Operators, albeit for only about a year. STIS had written procedures requiring new crane operators to undergo an “Equipment Operator Qualification,” including written or oral and practical examinations. Its evaluation required operators to demonstrate knowledge of operating manuals, load charts, crane configuration, hand signals, rated capacities and actual operation of the equipment. However, STIS could not produce documentation showing that the operator had completed the required practical evaluation. Although safety personnel testified that they had observed him operate cranes and believed he performed well, those observations were informal and were not conducted as qualification evaluations.

The Administrative Law Judge emphasized that certification alone could not substitute for the employer evaluation required by relevant federal safety regulations. Employers cannot assume that an operator’s license or certification ends the inquiry. Employers should independently verify that an operator possesses the skills, knowledge and ability to recognize and avoid risks associated with the specific equipment the employee will operate.

Supervision Must Match the Operator’s Experience

The ALJ’s decision focused heavily on supervision. On the morning of the accident, management recommended using a larger 80-ton crane. The operator instead selected the smaller 18-ton crane. His regular supervisor, who possessed crane expertise, was absent from the project that day.

The supervisors who remained onsite were experienced construction professionals, but neither was a certified crane operator. Both essentially deferred to the operator’s judgment concerning crane selection and configuration. When the operator chose not to use outriggers, supervisors did not intervene. When he attempted to lift four pipes instead of three, a supervisor questioned the decision but ultimately deferred after the operator responded that he knew what he was doing. That deference proved critical.

The ALJ determined that the operator was relatively inexperienced, having obtained his crane certification in 2022 and worked for STIS for only approximately one month. Under those circumstances, management should not have given him complete discretion concerning how the lift would be performed without appropriate supervision. The ALJ explained that supervisors are not justified in simply relying upon the judgment of an inexperienced employee.

Written Safety Programs Must Work in the Field

STIS had what appeared on paper to be a substantial safety program. Its policies required daily toolbox meetings, Job Safety Analyses, crane inspections, operator qualifications, pre operation hazard assessments and adherence to manufacturer requirements. Employees also had Stop Work Authority and were instructed to halt operations they believed were unsafe. Nevertheless, the ALJ found significant gaps between the written program and its implementation.

The Job Safety Analysis for the pipe moving operation identified hazards including “lines of fire,” “blind spots” and “heavy items” but did not identify crane overloading as a hazard. More significantly, the record did not establish that the decedent operator even attended the toolbox meeting that morning.

Here, the takeaway, often repeated in this series, is that a written safety program is only as effective as its implementation and enforcement. A toolbox talk or JSA should address the actual hazards associated with the assigned operation, and employers should document that the employees performing the work participated.

STIS also relied upon its Stop Work Authority policy, which allowed employees to stop unsafe work. The ALJ found the policy insufficient because the supervisors lacked the crane expertise necessary to recognize improper configuration or operation beyond rated capacity. Stop Work Authority is only effective when employees and supervisors are sufficiently trained to recognize when intervention is necessary.

Under these circumstances and based on the evidence submitted, the ALJ affirmed the citations and monetary penalties against STIS.

Lessons for Employers

The decision provides several practical takeaways. Employers should verify and document operator qualifications before permitting equipment operation; evaluate operators on the specific equipment and configurations they will encounter; ensure inexperienced operators receive appropriate supervision; conduct task specific JSAs that address equipment capacity, configuration, outriggers, load weights and other foreseeable hazards; and train supervisors sufficiently to recognize when operations should be stopped. Employers must also ensure that their written safety procedures are actually being followed in the field.

Certification may establish that an operator has met certain requirements, but it does not eliminate the employer’s responsibility. Proper qualifications, meaningful training, competent supervision and active enforcement remain essential components of crane safety.

About the author: Costas Cyprus, Esq. is a partner at the firm of Welby, Brady & Greenblatt, LLP, in White Plains, NY. He practices construction law and commercial litigation and can be reached at 914 428 2100 and at ccyprus@wbgllp.com. The articles in this series do not constitute legal advice and are intended for general guidance only.

Published: September 17, 2026.