Abstract: At approximately 3:30 p.m. on June 25, 1999, Employee #1, age 20, a coworker and the foreman were helping to demolish a three-car, one-story police garage. It was the first day of the job and Employee #1 was near an 8 to 10 ft tall cinder block wall when it collapsed on him. He suffered a fractured right tibia and a laceration to his right kneecap that required 20 stitches to close. Upon investigation, there was some dispute as to the sequence of events. The foreman stated that he had just finished unloading some debris into a dumpster and had lowered his backhoe bucket when he heard the coworker scream. The foreman said he turned and saw Employee #1 lying on the ground, with blood coming from his leg. Employee #1 stated that the foreman had been clearing debris from around the wall while he was working behind it, and that had caused the wall to collapse. The foreman acknowledged that the wall was not shored and no safety or freefall zone had been established around it. He claimed, however, that only three or four bricks struck Employee #1 and that the wall had only partially collapsed. In subsequent interviews, the foreman admitted he was not familiar with all the requirements of OSHA's demolition standards and therefore could not be recognized as a competent person, even though he was to have been monitoring the demolition. The foreman also stated that an engineering survey of the garage had not been done, nor had he been provided any site-specific training prior to beginning work on the site regarding what OSHA regulations applied to the crew. The foreman noted that Employee #1 had not been wearing a hard hat or safety glasses but that the crew knew that PPE was available to them and that it was not his responsibility "to be a babysitter" for Employee #1. The investigation resulted in the following conclusions: 1) continuing inspections of the demolition were not made by a competent person to determine the condition of the free standing cinder block wall; 2) Employee #1 was allowed to work near an unsafe condition because the deteriorating wall had not been braced or shored; 3) the foreman was supposed to monitor the operation, but he was not familiar with OSHA's' demolition standards and therefore could not be considered a competent person. This was a violation of T8CCR 1926.859(g).; 4) an engineering survey had not been made by a competent person to determine the structural condition of walls, etc. This was a violation of T8CCR 1926.850(a); and 5) site-specific training had not been provided to inform coworkers of hazards likely to be encountered.