🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242

Federal agency decisions, searchable in plain English.

Workplace-safety cases from the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) and mine-safety cases from the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC), each with a plain-English summary, the standards it cites, and whether it counts as precedent. More agencies are coming.

5,577 decisions and counting · Latest decision July 17, 2026
12 decisions 29 C.F.R. § 1910.213(d)(1)

No decisions match these filters

Try a different search term or clear the filters.

COMM

Loomis Cabinet Company

Cabinet workers held to be employees

Loomis Cabinet Company manufactured wooden cabinets and was cited after a follow-up inspection for repeat, other-than-serious, and failure-to-abate violations. Loomis stipulated to the violations but argued that its former employees had become partners in Eastview Cabinet Company, leaving Loomis…

May 20, 1992
Citations affirmed
COMM

Shelvie Summerlin, d/b/a A & S Millworks and Rentals

Unguarded table-saw violation affirmed

A & S Millworks and Rentals operated two 10-inch hand-fed crosscut table saws without blade guards. The company argued that standard guards were impractical and could create hazards during specialized cuts such as dadoing and moulding. The Commission held that impracticability alone was not a…

December 15, 1977
Citations affirmed
COMM

Lumb Woodworking Company, Inc.

Repeated table-saw guarding violation affirmed

Lumb Woodworking operated three unguarded table saws and argued that the required guards would create a greater hazard. Its president said guards hid the blades, collected sawdust, jammed material, and could contribute to kickback. The Commission found that this testimony did not explain why a…

August 4, 1977
Citations affirmed
COMM

Mikel Company, Inc.

Machine-guarding items affirmed in part and penalties reduced

Mikel Company manufactured high-style furniture using saws, routers, a jointer, and a root shaper. The judge vacated the root-shaper item because the evidence showed a hold-down guard was installed, but affirmed jointer and router guarding violations with penalties of $30 and $35. Four saw-guarding…

March 17, 1977
Mixed result
COMM

Wood Products Company

Timely oral contest accepted and case remanded

Wood Products Company orally told OSHA within the 15-working-day deadline that it intended to contest its citation and proposed penalties. The owner had several contacts with the area director, did not initially understand that the notice had to be written, and mailed written confirmation within no…

September 16, 1976
Remanded
COMM

Jones Oregon Stevedoring Company

Crosscut-saw guarding violation affirmed

Jones Oregon Stevedoring kept a circular crosscut table saw in its Coos Bay gear locker without the required blade hood. The company admitted the saw was not guarded but argued that the woodworking standard was invalid because OSHA omitted a headnote from the underlying ANSI material. The…

March 2, 1976
Citations affirmed
COMM

Acme Metal, Inc.

Penalty-only contests leave citations final

Acme Metal operated two steel-fabricating plants in Portland, Oregon. OSHA cited machine-guarding and posting violations after inspecting both plants. The Commission held that Acme's notices of contest placed only the penalties at issue for the table saw in docket 1811 and the metal saw and posting…

January 29, 1976
Mixed result
COMM

Continental Kitchens, Inc.

Woodworking saw-guard violations affirmed

Continental Kitchens manufactured kitchen cabinets using seven radial, swing cut-off, and hand-fed crosscut table saws that lacked required blade guards. The employer admitted the saws did not meet the guarding requirements but argued that guards could create a greater hazard by throwing small…

December 22, 1975
Citations affirmed
COMM

Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co.

Forty-six citation items vacated as untimely

OSHA cited 46 alleged safety, health, recordkeeping, and posting violations at Illinois Central Gulf Railroad's locomotive repair facility in Paducah, Kentucky. The inspection was coordinated with the Federal Railroad Administration, and the proposed citation moved through regional and national…

March 19, 1975
Citations vacated
COMM

Prineville Mouldings, Inc.

Trim-saw citation vacated, floor-opening item affirmed

Prineville Mouldings, Inc. manufactured lineal pine moulding at a plant in Prineville, Oregon. OSHA cited eight unguarded trim saws as hand-fed crosscut table saws, an uncovered floor opening leading to a conveyor, and unguarded power-transmission parts on woodworking machinery. The judge found…

November 11, 1974
Mixed result
COMM

Robert J. Lzicar

Floor, saw, and electrical violations affirmed

Robert J. Lzicar performed carpentry, steel framing, and concrete work at a large construction project. Employees worked near the unguarded edge of a partially completed second floor 22 feet above the surface below, and two saws lacked required blade guards. The judge affirmed those three serious…

June 26, 1974
Modified
COMM

Swan Lake Moulding Co.

Seven violations and $265 penalty affirmed

Swan Lake Moulding operated a cabinet shop and retail building-materials yard where OSHA cited electrical, machine-guarding, housekeeping, and floor hazards. The company contested the penalties for seven items but did not dispute the cited conditions. The judge affirmed those seven violations and…

November 13, 1973
Citations affirmed

What these documents are

  • Commission decisions: Rulings by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission itself, the highest level of agency review. These are citable as Commission precedent, though a decision may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance.
  • ALJ decisions: Rulings by OSHRC Administrative Law Judges after a hearing. When no Commissioner directs review, an ALJ decision becomes a final order under 29 U.S.C. § 661(j): it binds the parties in that case but is not binding precedent in other cases.
  • Why finality matters: Every page here says which kind of decision you are reading, so you know whether it is precedent you can cite or a final order that only shows how one judge ruled on one set of facts.
  • Where they come from: Every page links the official OSHRC public release, and the full text on the page is that release. The plain-English summaries are written by Ezel.