Lyle Stewart, d/b/a Stewart's Construction & Excavating Service, & Lothrop Electric Service

Plain-English summary

The consolidated cases of Lyle Stewart, doing business as Stewart’s Construction & Excavating Service, and Lothrop Electric Service came before the Commission on its own review order. No party objected to the judge’s decision or otherwise expressed dissatisfaction. The Commission declined to address the merits independently and left the judge’s decision unchanged. The available official HTML says the judge’s decision is attached, but the fetched text does not contain that attachment, so the underlying citations, standards, penalties, and substantive outcome are not identified.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): No OSHA standard is identified in the available official text.
• Outcome: The judge’s consolidated decision was left unchanged; the available release does not disclose its substantive disposition.
• Key point: With no party objection or compelling public-interest issue, the Commission ended review without deciding the merits independently.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket Nos. 14350; 14401 (Consolidated)

LYLE STEWART, d/b/a STEWART'S CONSTRUCTION & EXCAVATING SERVICE; and LOTHROP ELECTRIC SERVICE

OSHRC Docket Nos. 14350; 14401 (Consolidated)

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

February 18, 1977

�
[*1]
�

Before BARNAKO, Chairman; MORAN and CLEARY, Commissioners.
�

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Henry Mahlman,Regional Solicitor

Lyle Stewart, Stewart's Construction & Excavating Service

Eugene H. Lothrop, Pres., Lothrop Electric Service

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 [*2]
�
is accorded the significance of an unreviewed Judge's decision.
�
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.
�

CONCURBY: MORAN

CONCUR:

MORAN, Commissioner, Concurring:

I would affirm the Judge's decision for the reasons set forth in his decision which is attached hereto as Appendix A.
�
For the reasons expressed in my separate opinion in Secretary v. Schultz Roof Truss, Inc., OSAHRC Docket No. 14046, Dec. 20, 1976, I disagree with the majority's view regarding the significance of decisions rendered by Review Commission Judges.
�