29 C.F.R. § 2200.92

Review by the Commission

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

(a) Jurisdiction of the Commission; issues on review. Unless the Commission orders otherwise, a direction for review establishes jurisdiction in the Commission to review the entire case. The issues to be decided on review are within the discretion of the Commission.

(b) Review on a Commissioner's motion; issues on review. At any time within 30 days after the docketing date of the Judge's report, a Commissioner may, on the Commissioner's own motion, direct that a Judge's decision be reviewed. Factors that may be considered in deciding whether to direct review absent a petition include, but are not limited to, whether the case raises novel questions of law or policy or involves a conflict between Administrative Law Judges' decisions. When a Commissioner directs review on the Commissioner's own motion, the issues ordinarily will be those specified in the direction for review or any later order.

(c) Issues not raised before Judge. The Commission will ordinarily not review issues that the Judge did not have the opportunity to pass upon. In exercising discretion to review issues that the Judge did not have the opportunity to pass upon, the Commission may consider such factors as whether there was good cause for not raising the issue before the Judge, the degree to which the issue is factual, the degree to which proceedings will be disrupted or delayed by raising the issue on review, whether the ability of an adverse party to press a claim or defense would be impaired, and whether considering the new issue would avoid injustice or ensure that judgment will be rendered in accordance with the law and facts.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Startran, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 290 F. App'x 656 (5th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Startran, Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 290 F. App'x 656 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.92 (c) (“The Commission will ordinarily not review issues that the [ALJ] did not have the opportunity to pass upon.”

Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor v. A. Amorello & Sons, Inc., & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 761 F.2d 61 (1st Cir. 1985). “Those rules allow OSHRC to consider only the “issues specified” in the review petition, 29 C.F.R. § 2200.92 (c); and the Secretary’s petition seeking review of the AU’s decision did not mention the question of the regulation’s interpretation.”

Atlas Roofing Co., Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, United States Dep't Oflabor, 518 F.2d 990 (5th Cir. 1975). “Upon the filing of the record with it, the jurisdiction of the court shall be exclusive and its judgment and decree shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States, as provided in section 1254 of Title 28.”

Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor v. Fed. Clearing Die Casting Co. & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 695 F.2d 1020 (7th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “Since the issue had been raised by the parties before the ALJ, it was a proper issue to raise before the Commission (29 CFR 2200.92(d)) and it was specifically raised in the Secretary's petition asking the Commission to overrule the ALJ (App.”

Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Marshall, 610 F.2d 1128 (3rd Cir. 1979). “The company will not have to pay any fines, nor, other than in exceptional circumstances, will the violations have to be corrected until all good faith challenges to the citations have been considered by the Review Commission.”

Bragunier Masonry Contractors, Inc. v. Maryland Comm'r of Labor & Indus., 684 A.2d 6 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1996). “Unless the Commission orders otherwise, a direction for review establishes jurisdiction in the Commission to review the entire case.”

Cleveland Consol., Inc. v. Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 649 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1981). “” 29 C.F.R. § 2200.92 (c). The Secretary suggests that the regulation requires a ruling by this court that issues not specifically raised in the petition are waived.”

Cedar Springs Hosp. v. Occupational Health & Saf. (10th Cir. 2026). “See 29 C.F.R. § 2200.92 (c) (stating that “[t]he [Review] Commission will ordinarily not review issues that the [administrative law judge] did not have the opportunity to pass upon”).”

— 29 C.F.R. § 2200.92(d) — 1 case

Raymond J. Donovan, Sec'y of Labor v. Fed. Clearing Die Casting Co. & Occupational Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 695 F.2d 1020 (7th Cir. 1983). “Since the issue had been raised by the parties before the ALJ, it was a proper issue to raise before the Commission (29 CFR 2200.92(d)) and it was specifically raised in the Secretary's petition asking the Commission to overrule the ALJ (App.”

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.