29 C.F.R. § 2200.91

Discretionary review; petitions for discretionary review; statements in opposition to petitions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Review discretionary. Review by the Commission is not a right. A Commissioner may, as a matter of discretion, direct review on the Commissioner's own motion or on the petition of a party.

(b) Petitions for discretionary review. A party adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision of the Judge may seek review by the Commission by filing a petition for discretionary review with the Executive Secretary at any time following the service of the Judge's decision on the parties but no later than 20 days after the date of docketing of the Judge's report. Service of the filed petition on the other parties and intervenors shall be accomplished in a manner prescribed in § 2200.7(c). The earlier a petition is filed, the more consideration it can be given. A petition for discretionary review may be conditional, and it may state that review is sought only if a Commissioner were to direct review on the petition of an opposing party.

(c) Cross-petitions for discretionary review. Where a petition for discretionary review has been filed by one party, any other party adversely affected or aggrieved by the decision of the Judge may seek review by the Commission by filing a cross-petition for discretionary review. The cross-petition may be conditional. See paragraph (b) of this section. A cross-petition shall be filed directly with the Executive Secretary within 27 days after the date of docketing of the Judge's report. The earlier a cross-petition is filed, the more consideration it can be given.

(d) Contents of the petition. No particular form is required for a petition for discretionary review. A petition should state why review should be directed, including: Whether the Judge's decision raises an important question of law, policy, or discretion; whether review by the Commission will resolve a question about which the Commission's Judges have rendered differing opinions; whether the Judge's decision is contrary to law or Commission precedent; whether a finding of material fact is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence; whether a prejudicial error of procedure or an abuse of discretion was committed. A petition should concisely state the portions of the decision for which review is sought and should refer to the citations and citation items (for example, citation 3, item 4a) for which review is sought. A petition shall not incorporate by reference a brief or legal memorandum. Brevity and the inclusion of precise references to the record and legal authorities will facilitate prompt review of the petition.

(e) When filing effective. A petition for discretionary review is filed when received by the Commission, as specified in § 2200.8(d)(3)(ii).

(f) Prerequisite to judicial review; effect of filing. A petition for review under this section is, under 5 U.S.C. 704, a prerequisite to the seeking of judicial review of the final agency action. The effect of filing a petition for review is to stay the decision of the Judge.

(g) Statements in opposition to petition. Statements in opposition to petitions for discretionary review may be filed in the manner specified in this section for the filing of petitions for discretionary review. Statements in opposition shall concisely state why the Judge's decision should not be reviewed with respect to each portion of the petition to which it is addressed.

[84 FR 14558, Apr. 10, 2019; 84 FR 53053, Oct. 4, 2019]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 33 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2022 · leading case: P. Gioioso & Sons, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

P. Gioioso & Sons, Inc. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1997) ca1 · cites it 5× “” 29 C.F.R. § 2200.91 (f). Interestingly, the commentary accompanying this part of the regulations directs the reader to the Third Circuit’s opinion in Keystone Roofing Co.”

John W. McGowan v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor, and Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (1979) ca5 · cites it 6× “The appellant filed neither a brief in response to this notice nor a petition for discretionary review under 29 C.F.R. § 2200.91 (a). 13 However, the appellant did file a motion for costs and attorney's fees.”

Ed Taylor Construction Co. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Labor (1991) ca11 · cites it 3× “While the Act specifically provides that actual “[rjeview by the Commission is not a right,” 29 C.F.R. § 2200.91 (a), the plain language of both the Act and the regulations indicate that an employer’s petition is at least entitled to consideration for review.”

Comtran Group, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Labor (2013) ca11 “The ALJ’s order becomes a final decision of the Commission 30 days thereafter, unless the party affected or aggrieved by the decision petitions the Commission for discretionary review, 29 C.F.R. § 2200.91 , and a Commission member requests that the case be reviewed by the full…”

Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor v. Federal Clearing Die Casting Company and Occupational Safety and Health Review (1983) ca7 · cites it 4× “See 29 CFR 2200.91(b)(3). No more was required.”

A.J. McNulty & Co. v. Secretary of Labor (2002) cadc “29 C.F.R. § 2200.91 (b). The Commission may review any issue raised in the PDR or, on its own motion, any other issue.”

Globe Contractors, Inc. v. Alexis M. Herman, Secretary, United States Department of Labor (1997) ca7 · cites it 3× “1 . Kevin Van Straten is also Dean Van Straten's brother.”

Stockwell Manufacturing Company v. William J. Usery, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor (1976) ca10 “29 C.F.R. § 2200.91 provides: “(c) A petition should contain a concise statement of each portion of the decision and order to which exception is taken and may be accompanied by a brief of points and authorities relied upon.”

Secretary of Labor v. Beverly Healthcare-Hillview (2008) ca3 “; 29 C.F.R. § 2200.91 . An aggrieved party may petition the Court of Appeals for review of the Commission’s final order.”

Durez Division of Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (1990) cadc “See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.91 (d) (“a petition should concisely state the portions of the decision for which review is sought”).”

Accu-Namics, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, Secretary of Labor, and Johnt. Dunlop (1975) ca5 “The regulations provide that a party aggrieved by the judge’s decision may petition for discretionary review by the Commission, 29 C.F.R. § 2200.91 , but a party has neither the right to review by the Commission, nor the right to present additional material or oral argument on…”

Atlas Roofing Company, Inc. v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, United States Department Oflabor (1975) ca5 “§ 661 (i) (1974); 29 C.F.R. § 2200.91 , as revised, 37 F.R.”

Show all 33 citing cases →

— 29 C.F.R. § 2200.91(b)(3) — 1 case

Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor v. Federal Clearing Die Casting Company and Occupational Safety and Health Review (1983) ca7 “See 29 CFR 2200.91(b)(3). No more was required.”

— 29 C.F.R. § 2200.91(f) — 1 case

Gioioso v. OSHRC (1997) ca1

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.