🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 79-5002 Decided May 19, 1982 Remanded

Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Platform citation remanded for de minimis findings

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1982, 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 1982
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

An administrative law judge had vacated a citation alleging that Anheuser-Busch violated the platform-guarding standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.23(c)(1). The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the cited surfaces were platforms under the regulatory definition and ordering that the citation be affirmed. On rehearing, the court left open whether the violation should be classified as de minimis because the judge had made no findings on that issue. The Commission remanded the case to the chief administrative law judge for proceedings consistent with the court's opinions. The order does not state a penalty.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.23(c)(1)
  • Outcome: Remanded for findings on whether the court-ordered affirmed violation was de minimis.
  • Key point: The surfaces were platforms covered by the guarding standard, but the violation's de minimis status required initial factfinding.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 79-5002

ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC.

OSHRC Docket No. 79-5002

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

May 19, 1982

COUNSEL:


[*1]

Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Bobbye D. Spears, Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor

A. Graham Allen, for the employer

Lewis L. Loss, President, Teamsters Local 947, for the employees

OPINION:

ORDER OF REMAND

This case is before the Commission on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The court reversed a decision by former Administrative Law Judge Brenton vacating a citation that alleged a violation of 29 C.F.R. �

1910.23(c)(1).

The court held that the cited surfaces were "platforms" within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. �

1910.21(a)(4), ordered that the citation be affirmed, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

On rehearing, the court held that because Judge Brenton had not made findings on whether the violation was de minimis, it would not consider whether the citation should be affirmed as de minimis. It stated that on remand initial findings may be made on that matter.

Donovan v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 666 F.2d 315 (8th Cir. 1981), reh'g denied, 666 F.2d 328 (1982). The case is remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings consistent with the opinions of the court.

[*2]

SO ORDERED.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1982. 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.