Ezel / Agency Decisions / 15435-commission
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 15435 Decided January 30, 1978 Citations affirmed

Carmody Roofing

Judge affirmed without merits review

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1978, 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 1978
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 Carmody Roofing case under review on its own initiative. Neither party petitioned for review, objected to the judge's decision, or otherwise stated that it was dissatisfied. The Commission declined to pass on, modify, or change the ruling because no compelling public interest required merits review. It ordered the judge's decision affirmed but stated that the ruling would retain only the significance of an unreviewed judge's decision. The Commission order does not identify the cited standards, underlying hazards, result details, or penalty.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): Not specified in the Commission order
  • Outcome: The judge's decision was affirmed without merits review.
  • Key point: An unchallenged judge's ruling may be affirmed without becoming Commission precedent when no compelling public interest calls for review.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 15435

CARMODY ROOFING

OSHRC Docket No. 15435

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

January 30, 1978

�
[*1]
�

Before CLEARY, Chairman; and BARNAKO, Commissioner.

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Francis V. LaRuffa, Regional Solicitor, USDOL

Henry Gossel, for the employer

OPINION:

DECISION

This case is before the Commission pursuant to a sua sponte order for review.
�
The parties have filed no objection 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.
�
See Abbott-Sommer, Inc., 76 OSAHRC 21/A2, 3 BNA OSHC 2032, 1975-76 CCH OSHD para. 20,428 (No. 9507, 1976); Crane Co., 76 OSAHRC 37/A2, 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 Judge's decision is accorded the significance of an unreviewed Judge's decision.
�
See Leone Construction Co., 76 OSAHRC [*2]
�
12/E6, 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 1978. 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.