Ezel / Agency Decisions / 97-1076-commission
OSHRC Commission decision Docket 97-1076 Decided November 6, 1997 Procedural

Innovative Laminating Corp.

Commission corrects wrong-case settlement filing

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 Commission's own document.
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

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 1997. 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.