Innovative Laminating Corp. (Commission decision, November 6, 1997)

Commission corrects wrong-case settlement filing

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
97-1076
Decided
November 6, 1997
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-07-23

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1997, 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 1997
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 agency's own release.
Read the official release (oshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary issued Innovative Laminating Corp. a failure-to-abate citation and later filed an unsigned settlement followed by a notice of withdrawal. A signed settlement for a different employer, Innovative Plastics, Inc., was then mistakenly filed under this docket number and approved by an administrative law judge. The Commission found that the employer names, locations, inspection numbers, citation items, and penalties did not match this case. It struck the wrong-company settlement, set aside the order approving it, and directed that the document be returned to the Secretary's counsel. The Commission also approved the Secretary's withdrawal of the Innovative Laminating case.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): Not stated in the Commission order.
  • Outcome: The erroneous settlement and its approval were set aside, and the Secretary's withdrawal of the actual case was approved.
  • Key point: A settlement filed under the wrong docket cannot resolve the case, even if it was inadvertently approved.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

United States of America
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION 1120 20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20036-3419

Office of
Phone: (202) 606-5400
Executive Secretary
Fax: (202) 606-5050

:
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
:
:
Complainant,
:
:
v. : OSHRC Docket No. 97-1076
:
INNOVATIVE LAMINATING CORP.,
:
:
Respondent.
:
:

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER
Before: WEISBERG, Chairman; GUTTMAN, Commissioner.
BY THE COMMISSION:
We direct this case for review to correct an administrative error that has occurred because a signed stipulated settlement that pertains to another matter was filed and approved in this case.
In this case, the Secretary issued a failure to abate citation, inspection number 301055117, to Innovative Laminating Corp. (Innovative Laminating) located at Passaic, New Jersey. Thereafter the Executive Secretary docketed Innovative Laminating’s notice of contest as docket number 97-1076. The Secretary then filed an unsigned copy of a stipulated settlement. A signed copy of the settlement was never filed. Subsequently, the Secretary filed a notice of withdrawal that has not been acted on.
Most recently, the Secretary filed a cover letter and a signed stipulated settlement with the Commission. The letter referenced Innovative Plastics, Inc., (Innovative Plastics) but listed the docket number as 97-1076. The attached settlement is also captioned with the employer’s

1997 OSHRC No. 46 name as Innovative Plastics, Inc., and lists the inspection number of 301455507. The signed settlement agreement states that it was served on the authorized employee representative for Innovative Plastics at Orangeburg, New York. The settlement agreement was then approved by the administrative law judge.
It is clear that the signed settlement agreement does not pertain to this case. The employers’ names, locations, and inspection numbers are different. The references to the item numbers in the citation and the proposed penalties are also different. We are unable to find a case file under the name Innovative Plastics. Thus, we conclude that the signed settlement was incorrectly filed in this record and inadvertently approved by the judge.
Accordingly, we strike the signed settlement concerning Innovative Plastics from the record and set aside the administrative law judge’s order approving it. We also approve the Secretary’s notice of withdrawal in this case.
The Executive Secretary is directed to return the erroneously filed signed settlement to the Secretary’s counsel. So ordered.

/s/
Stuart E. Weisberg, Chairman

Date: November 7, 1997
/s/
Daniel Guttman, Commissioner

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace