🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
Ezel / Agency Decisions / 12754-commission
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 12754 Decided August 29, 1977 Citations affirmed

Daniel Construction Company

Unopposed judge decision affirmed

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1977, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1977
The OSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official OSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official OSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The Commission placed the case on review on its own initiative. Neither party objected to the judge's decision or otherwise expressed dissatisfaction with it. The Commission found no compelling public-interest issue requiring review. It therefore declined to address or modify the merits and affirmed the judge's decision. The release states that the judge's decision retains the significance of an unreviewed judge decision. It does not identify the cited standards, underlying conditions, outcome details, or penalties.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): Not identified in the Commission release
  • Outcome: Judge's decision affirmed without substantive Commission review
  • Key point: When no party seeks review and no compelling public-interest issue exists, the Commission may leave the judge's decision undisturbed without addressing its merits.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 12754

DANIEL CONSTRUCTION CO.
�

OSHRC Docket No. 12754

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

August 29, 1977

�
[*1]
�

Before BARNAKO, Chairman; and CLEARY, Commissioner.

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Bobbye D. Spears, Regional Solicitor, USDOL

Gregory B. Tobin, for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

This case is before the Commission pursuant to a sua sponte order for review.
�
The parties have filed no objections to the Administrative Law Judge's decision, either by way of petitions for discretionary review or response to the order for review.
�
Accordingly, there has been no appeal to the Commission, and no party has otherwise expressed dissatisfaction with the Administrative Law Judge's decision.

In these circumstances, the Commission declines to pass upon, modify or change the Judge's decision in the absence of compelling public interest.
�
Abbott-Sommer, Inc. 3 BNA OSHC 2032, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,428 (No. 9507, 1976); Crane Co., 4 BNA OSHC 1015, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,508 (No. 3336, 1976); see also Keystone Roofing Co., Inc., v. O.S.H.R.C., 539 F.2d 960, 964 (3d Cir. 1976). The order for review in this case describes no compelling public interest issue.

The Judge's decision is accorded the significance of an unreviewed Judge's decision.
��
[*2]
�
Leone Constr. Co., 3 BNA OSHC 1979, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,387 (No. 4090, 1976).

It is ORDERED that the decision be affirmed.
�

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1977. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.