Rocky Mountain Prestress, Inc.

Plain-English summary

This is a brief Commission order in a case involving Rocky Mountain Prestress, Inc. A Commissioner had directed the Administrative Law Judge's decision up for review on the Commission's own motion (sua sponte). Neither party filed anything objecting to the judge's decision, whether by a petition for discretionary review or a response to the review order, so no one expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome below. Because there was no party interest and the Commission found no compelling public interest issue, it declined to pass on, modify, or change the judge's decision. The Commission affirmed the decision and gave it only the weight of an unreviewed judge's decision, meaning it binds these parties but is not Commission precedent. The order does not restate what the underlying citations were or how the judge ruled on them.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): none stated in this order
• Outcome: Affirmed without substantive review; the ALJ decision stands with the significance of an unreviewed judge's decision.
• Key point: Where a case reaches the Commission only on a sua sponte review order and no party objects, the Commission will not disturb the judge's decision absent a compelling public interest.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 76-3153

ROCKY MOUNTAIN PRESTRESS, INC.

OSHRC Docket No. 76-3153

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

June 24, 1977

Before BARNAKO, Chairman; and CLEARY, Commissioner.

COUNSEL:

Baruch A. Fellner, Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

T. A. Housh, Jr., Regional Solicitor, USDOL

Mike Herrera, Director of Safety, Rocky Mountain Prestress, Inc., 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. 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.