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.

5,593 decisions and counting · Latest decision July 17, 2026
8 decisions 29 C.F.R. § 1910.213(p)(4)

No decisions match these filters

Try a different search term or clear the filters.

ALJ

L & B Products, Corp.

Fifty manufacturing safety items affirmed

L & B Products, Corp. manufactured furniture at a facility in Hudson, New York. OSHA issued 51 serious and other-than-serious items after inspecting eight departments. The allegations covered elevated work areas, exit signs, flammable liquids, fire and lockout training, machine and power-press…

February 27, 1998 ·Covette Rooney
Mixed result
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

Harrison Furniture Manufacturing Company

Commission approves withdrawal of all citations

OSHA cited Harrison Furniture Manufacturing Company for numerous conditions at its Arkansas furniture plant after an inspection conducted under a warrant. The earlier litigation addressed whether evidence from a plant-wide inspection should be suppressed when the warrant application was based on…

March 20, 1987
Settled
COMM

The Gould-Mersereau Co., Inc.

Machine-guarding violations partly affirmed

Gould-Mersereau manufactured drapery hardware at a New York City plant where an inspection produced thirteen nonserious citation items. The judge affirmed machine-guarding violations involving feed rollers, a power-press pedal, and ten riveting machines, but vacated the portions involving a…

July 21, 1976
Mixed result
COMM

Stowe Canoe Company

Twenty-one safety items affirmed

Stowe Canoe operated a small Vermont canoe-manufacturing facility. OSHA cited 22 conditions involving machine guarding, eye protection, flammable-liquid handling, fire extinguishers, compressed air, electrical equipment, aisle marking, and injury-record posting. The judge affirmed the first 21…

March 8, 1976
Mixed result
COMM

Johnson Brothers Planing Mill, Inc.

Millwork machine-guarding citations affirmed

Johnson Brothers manufactured wood products using radial and table saws, sanding equipment, belt-driven machinery, and electrical equipment with several cited guarding or grounding deficiencies. The serious citation involved unguarded lower portions of two radial-saw blades and an unguarded…

December 9, 1975
Citations affirmed
COMM

C & R Cabinet Company

Failure-to-abate and posting penalties assessed

A follow-up inspection found six unabated machine-guarding violations involving ripsaws, radial saws, sanders, and a conveyor. C & R Cabinet had corrected seven other items and had ordered some missing guard parts, so the judge reduced the proposed $1,675 failure-to-abate penalty to $825. The…

May 23, 1975
Modified
COMM

Charles A. Davison & Margaret S. Davison, dba Davison Wood Products

Machine-guarding items affirmed without penalties

OSHA cited a small woodworking business for unguarded sanding machines, a jointer, saw belts and pulleys, and a rip saw, along with alleged electrical, spray-booth ventilation, and first-aid violations. The judge affirmed the four machine-guarding items without penalties. He vacated the electrical…

December 26, 1974
Mixed result

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.