Safety Watch
Demolition Safety Procedures Must Keep Pace with Changing Job Site Conditions
By COSTAS CYPRUS, ESQ.
As demolition progresses, the same work that creates a new fall hazard can also weaken the surface on which employees are standing. A concrete slab that supported workers before it was cut may no longer safely support them after adjacent sections are removed. The recent decision in Secretary of Labor v. Gorick Construction Co., Inc., illustrates why contractors must verify the structural integrity of their employees’ work surfaces and ensure that fall protection remains in place as the work progresses.
The case arose from the Jan. 29, 2024, partial collapse of a parking deck adjoining a former department store in Binghamton, NY. Gorick had removed 63 of the 66 slabs on the deck’s second level. The crew typically used a crane and a vacuum lifting device to remove each slab. When the device could not establish a seal, employees used a steel bar to pry up the slab so that a wire sling could be passed underneath. Under either method, employees stood on an adjacent slab that had already been cut.
When the vacuum device failed to adhere to slab 64, two Gorick employees stood on slab 65 and attempted to pry up slab 64 to insert the sling. The slab beneath them gave way first, quickly followed by the slab they were attempting to lift. The two employees fell approximately 12 feet, and one was trapped by the concrete and required multiple surgeries. The crane subcontractor’s signal person was also injured.
An OSHA Compliance Safety and Health Officer visited the site the next day. Following its investigation, OSHA cited Gorick for two serious violations. The first concerned Gorick’s obligation to determine that employees’ walking and working surfaces had sufficient strength and structural integrity to support them safely before allowing them to work there. The second concerned the failure to protect employees working at an unprotected edge six feet or more above a lower level with guardrails, safety nets or personal fall arrest systems. Gorick contested the citations.
Significantly, the last three slabs presented different conditions from much of the deck. The top flange of the steel beam supporting the south ends of slabs 64 and 65 was only five inches wide, and the saw cut was at or near the flange’s edge, leaving inadequate bearing. Gorick’s project safety plan called for shoring at the north and south edges, but the last three slabs were shored only at the north end. As the neighboring slabs were removed, there were fewer adjoining sections to help hold the remaining slabs in place.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Gorick’s visual checks did not adequately establish how much of the cut slabs still rested on the beam. Looking from below did not reliably show where the cut at the top of the slab fell relative to the flange. The assessment also failed to account for the forces employees applied when they pried the slabs apart. The ALJ identified measuring the cuts to verify adequate bearing or installing shoring at the south end as steps Gorick could have taken before allowing the crew to work from those slabs.
For demolition contractors, the pre-demolition engineering survey and the demolition plan should inform what supervisors verify in the field. Before employees step onto a cut section, the supervisor should confirm that the cuts and temporary supports match the plan and that the surface can support the work actually being performed. If a beam is narrower than expected, a cut deviates from its layout, or the crew must change lifting methods, the supervisor should stop and reassess the operation before allowing work to continue.
The fall protection violation arose from a separate failure. As the crew reached the final slabs, it moved beyond the area served by the earlier tie-off arrangement. The workers proceeded without effective fall protection. One employee explained that installing new anchors would have required getting a hammer drill and that the crew was trying to finish for the day. When a personal fall arrest system is used, supervisors should verify that suitable anchors are available and that workers are connected before they enter the next exposed area. That verification belongs in the removal sequence, while the crew still has a protected place from which to prepare for the next lift.
Gorick asserted that the failure to tie off was the result of unpreventable employee misconduct. The ALJ rejected that defense. The evidence did not establish that Gorick adequately communicated the applicable rules, took sufficient steps to discover violations or effectively enforced its fall protection requirements. The ALJ affirmed both serious violations and assessed penalties totaling $19,359.
This decision serves as a reminder that demolition contractors must reassess both the stability of the surface employees are working from and the adequacy of their fall protection as the work progresses. Before allowing employees to stand on a cut slab, supervisors should verify that the slab has adequate bearing or shoring for the work the crew will actually perform.
Contractors should also plan how workers will remain protected as each section is removed. Where the crew relies on personal fall arrest systems, suitable anchor points must be available and workers must be tied off before they enter the next exposed area. If a cut deviates from the plan, the lifting method changes or the existing anchors are out of reach, supervisors should stop the work until the condition is addressed. Even after safely removing every preceding slab, a demolition crew must reassess conditions before removing the last one.
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 or at ccyprus@wbgllp.com. The articles in this series do not constitute legal advice and are intended for general guidance only.
Published: November 12, 2026.