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.

7,177 decisions and counting · Latest decision July 17, 2026
18 decisions 29 C.F.R. § 2700.26

No decisions match these filters

Try a different search term or clear the filters.

ALJ

The Doe Run Company v. Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Labor v. The Doe Run Company

The Doe Run Company v. Secretary of Labor (FMSHRC CENT 2016-283 RM, et al.): Amended escapeway settlement preserves one penalty docket

MSHA cited five Doe Run mines under 30 C.F.R. § 57.11050(a), alleging that two escapeways were not provided from all working areas. Doe Run argued that the two-escapeway requirement applied only to the mines' lowest levels, and the parties completed a four-day trial before settling. Under the…

December 7, 2016 ·David P. Simonton
Settled
ALJ

The Doe Run Company v. Secretary of Labor and Secretary of Labor v. The Doe Run Company

The Doe Run Company v. Secretary of Labor (FMSHRC CENT 2016-283 RM, et al.): Original escapeway settlement later corrected

MSHA cited five Doe Run mines under 30 C.F.R. § 57.11050(a), alleging that two escapeways were not provided from all working areas. Doe Run argued that the requirement applied only to the mines' lowest levels, and the parties completed a four-day trial before reaching a comprehensive settlement…

November 16, 2016 ·David P. Simonton
Settled
COMM

Secretary of Labor v. Pocahontas Coal Company, LLC

Secretary of Labor v. Pocahontas Coal Company, LLC (FMSHRC WEVA 2014-202-R): Direct challenge to pattern notice dismissed

MSHA issued Pocahontas Coal a pattern-of-violations notice based on 36 citations and orders concerning roof, rib, emergency-preparedness, and escapeway hazards. Pocahontas directly contested the notice before the Commission, separate from later withdrawal orders issued under the pattern provisions…

February 16, 2016
Procedural
COMM

Secretary of Labor v. James L. Deck

Secretary of Labor v. James L. Deck (FMSHRC SE 2014-322-M): Unwithdrawn individual penalty reopened

James Deck did not timely contest an individual civil-penalty assessment under section 110(c), so the assessment became a final Commission order. Deck said the Secretary had agreed during earlier settlement negotiations to withdraw the individual proceeding but mistakenly failed to do so. The…

December 18, 2015
Remanded
COMM

Secretary of Labor v. Howard R. Hensley, employed by Mill Branch Coal Co.

Secretary of Labor v. Howard R. Hensley (FMSHRC VA 2015-29): Individual penalty reopened after address change

Howard Hensley did not timely contest an individual penalty assessment under section 110(c). He said he never received the assessment because his home address had changed, and postal records showed that the mail was refused and returned to MSHA because the addressee was unknown. The Secretary did…

December 4, 2015
Remanded
COMM

Secretary of Labor v. Jim Reeves, employee of Rodeo Creek Gold, Inc.

Secretary of Labor v. Jim Reeves (FMSHRC WEST 2014-83): Personal-service issue made reopening moot

MSHA delivered an individual penalty assessment for Jim Reeves to the mine where he had worked as a shift foreman. Reeves said he never personally received it, and the Secretary conceded that personal service may not have occurred. Because the 30-day contest period begins upon the individual's…

November 30, 2015
Remanded
COMM

Secretary of Labor v. David Vukmanic, formerly employed by Consolidation Coal Company

Secretary of Labor v. David Vukmanic (FMSHRC WEVA 2014-1998): Wrong-address assessment never became final

MSHA proposed an individual penalty against former Consolidation Coal employee David Vukmanic under section 110(c) of the Mine Act. Vukmanic asked to reopen after learning that MSHA had mailed the assessment to the wrong address. The Secretary confirmed the addressing error and reported that…

May 18, 2015
Procedural
COMM

Secretary of Labor v. Justin Hershman, formerly employed by Consolidation Coal Company

Secretary of Labor v. Justin Hershman (FMSHRC WEVA 2014-1997): Wrong-address individual assessment remained open

MSHA proposed an individual penalty against former Consolidation Coal employee Justin Hershman under section 110(c) of the Mine Act. Hershman asked to reopen after learning that MSHA had mailed the assessment to the wrong address. The Secretary confirmed the addressing error and reported that…

May 18, 2015
Procedural
COMM

Secretary of Labor v. Charles Reckner, Jr., employed by Buck Run Aggregates

Secretary of Labor v. Charles Reckner, Jr., employed by Buck Run Aggregates (FMSHRC LAKE 2013-567-M): Individual penalty contest reopened

Charles Reckner did not separately contest a proposed individual penalty under section 110(c) because he believed the mine operator's contest covered his assessment. His individual assessment therefore became a final Commission order, while the operator timely contested its own assessment. The…

October 21, 2014
Remanded
COMM

Secretary of Labor v. Scott Carpenter

Secretary of Labor v. Scott Carpenter (FMSHRC WEVA 2013-25): Individual penalty reopened after mail went to former address

Scott Carpenter asked the Commission to reopen an individual section 110(c) penalty assessment that became final after no contest was filed. MSHA sent the assessment and delinquency notice to an address where Carpenter said he had not lived since 2010, even though he had requested that…

May 31, 2013
Remanded
COMM

Secretary of Labor v. Lewis Johnson, employed by Elmore Sand and Gravel, Inc.

Secretary of Labor v. Lewis Johnson, employed by Elmore Sand and Gravel, Inc. (FMSHRC SE 2013-68-M): Unreceived individual assessment was not final

MSHA mailed Lewis Johnson an individual section 110(c) penalty assessment four days after he left Elmore Sand and Gravel. The mailing was returned unclaimed, and Johnson said he did not remember receiving it. The Secretary did not oppose Johnson's request to reopen. The Commission held that the…

May 30, 2013
Remanded
COMM

Secretary of Labor v. Lance R. Battersby

Secretary of Labor v. Lance R. Battersby (FMSHRC PENN 2012-445-M): Individual penalty reopened after move disrupted mail

Lance Battersby filed an individual section 110(c) penalty contest 17 days after the assessment became final. He said a move to Pennsylvania caused delays in forwarding his mail, and later delinquency notices were returned undelivered. MSHA eventually transferred the debt to the Department of…

May 30, 2013
Remanded
COMM

Joe Estis, employed by Chemical Lime Company of Alabama, LLC

Joe Estis, employed by Chemical Lime Company of Alabama, LLC (FMSHRC SE 2010-249-M): Section 110(c) reopening request dismissed as moot

Joe Estis and Chemical Lime Company of Alabama asked the Commission to reopen an individual penalty assessment that became final after Estis did not timely contest it. Counsel stated that MSHA sent the assessment to an address where Estis no longer lived, and the Secretary did not oppose reopening…

May 21, 2013
Procedural
COMM

Secretary of Labor v. Kemper Equipment, Inc.

Secretary of Labor v. Kemper Equipment, Inc. (FMSHRC WEVA 2010-1316-RM, WEVA 2010-1317-RM): Mistaken dual-filing default reopened

Kemper timely contested a citation and order, but its vice president did not forward the later proposed penalty assessment to counsel because she mistakenly believed the earlier contests also covered the penalties. The Mine Act requires separate filings: contesting a citation does not contest its…

February 27, 2013
Remanded
COMM

Secretary of Labor v. Matt Rudnianyn and Jeff D. Farley, employed by Commercial Industrial Corp.

Secretary of Labor v. Matt Rudnianyn and Jeff D. Farley (FMSHRC SE 2012-531-M, SE 2012-532-M): Two individual assessments reopened

MSHA assessed Matt Rudnianyn and Jeff Farley personally under section 110(c), but neither assessment was timely contested. Rudnianyn said Commercial Industrial and its agents did not know about the assessments until delinquency notices arrived and suggested that any received papers may have been…

February 14, 2013
Remanded
COMM

Secretary of Labor v. Travis Alexander, employed by Tycon Excavating Contractor, Inc.

Secretary of Labor v. Travis Alexander (FMSHRC SE 2012-439-M): Wrong-address individual assessment reopened

MSHA assessed Travis Alexander personally under section 110(c) of the Mine Act, but he did not timely contest the proposed penalty and it became a final Commission order. Alexander said he never received the assessment or delinquency notice because MSHA mailed both to the wrong address. The…

February 14, 2013
Remanded
COMM

Secretary of Labor v. Dennis S. Bell and Michael P. Duffy, employed by Duffy, Inc.

Secretary of Labor v. Dennis S. Bell and Michael P. Duffy (FMSHRC PENN 2013-86-M, PENN 2013-87-M): Two individual assessments reopened

Counsel for Duffy, Inc. sought to reopen individual section 110(c) assessments against Dennis Bell and the company's late owner, Michael Duffy. The corporate secretary said both contest forms were mailed on September 7, 2012, but MSHA had no record of receiving them. Michael Duffy had died in a…

January 31, 2013
Remanded
COMM

Long Branch Energy

Long Branch Energy (FMSHRC WEVA 2009-1492-R): Late penalty petitions reinstated after District 4 backlog

The Secretary filed seven penalty petitions between about seven and eleven months after the Commission's 45-day deadline, and the judge dismissed the cases. The Commission clarified that adequate cause exists when the Secretary gives a plausible, supported explanation showing the delay did not…

August 30, 2012
Remanded

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.