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
7 decisions 29 C.F.R. § 1926.502(h)(1)(iii)

No decisions match these filters

Try a different search term or clear the filters.

ALJ

Payton Roofing, Inc.

Safety-monitor violation affirmed with increased penalty

Payton Roofing employees worked on a low-slope commercial roof about nine feet above the ground without personal fall protection. A company officer said he was serving as the safety monitor, but he remained on the ground and could not see employees working on the back side of the roof. The judge…

January 4, 2017 ·John B. Gatto
Modified
ALJ

Latite Roofing and Sheet Metal LLC, the Successor to Latite Roofing and Sheet Metal Co., Inc.

Safety-monitoring violation affirmed with a $5,000 penalty

Latite Roofing used a safety-monitoring system while three employees worked on a three-story residential roof. OSHA alleged that the designated monitor could not always see or orally communicate with the other roofers and had roofing duties that distracted him from monitoring. The judge found that…

December 16, 2010 ·Dennis L. Phillips
Citations affirmed
COMM

Capeway Roofing Systems, Inc.

Seven roofing violations and $111,800 affirmed

Capeway Roofing installed roofing on a firehouse with four roof levels and was cited for head protection, fall protection, monitoring, training, material storage, and defective safety equipment. The Commission found that any error in allowing two OSHA witnesses to remain in the courtroom despite a…

August 26, 2003
Citations affirmed
ALJ

Holland Roofing of Columbus, Inc.

Safety-monitor violations resulted in $2,500 in penalties

Holland Roofing used a safety-monitoring system for employees working on a flat roof more than 20 feet above the ground. The designated monitor left the workers' level and later turned away from them while helping place materials. The judge found that both actions violated the safety-monitor…

November 27, 2002 ·G. Marvin Bober
Modified
COMM

Pete Miller, Inc.

Safety monitor had to be on the same roof as the monitored worker

Pete Miller was a roofing subcontractor on a hospital addition in Marysville, Ohio. An employee on a small lower roof handled metal curbs weighing about 150 pounds and pushed them over an unguarded edge to the ground 15 feet below. The company used a foreman on an upper roof as the employee's…

December 8, 2000
Mixed result
ALJ

King Concrete Construction Company, Inc.

Willful fall violations and settlement yield $18,200

King Concrete performed concrete work on a barracks project at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. The company admitted that employees working on and near leading edges lacked required fall protection, but disputed OSHA's willful classification and proposed $49,000 penalty. The judge found the violations…

July 30, 1998 ·Stephen J. Simko, Jr.
Mixed result
ALJ

New England Masonry Co.

Most roofing-site citations affirmed, safety-monitor and ladder-inspection items vacated

New England Masonry Co. was replacing the flat roof on a convalescent home in Glastonbury, Connecticut, when OSHA inspected and issued a five-item serious citation. The judge affirmed most of it: a ground worker in the hoist area without a hard hat, a discharged and an overcharged fire extinguisher…

June 17, 1998 ·John H. Frye, III
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.