Yes. Under 2200.61(a) a case may be fully stipulated by the parties and submitted to the Commission or the Judge for a decision at any time. See also the general part rules at 2200.
The stipulation must be in writing and signed by the parties or their representatives. This is required by 2200.61(a).
No. Submission under 2200.61(a) does not alter the burden of proof. The parties remain responsible for meeting the same legal burdens as they would at a hearing.
No. Submission under 2200.61(a) does not alter the requirements for adducing proof, nor does it change the effect of failure of proof; those consequences remain the same as in a hearing.
Motions for summary judgment in this context are governed by 2200.40(j), as stated explicitly in 2200.61(b). See the broader 2200 part for context.
Yes. 2200.61(a) says a case may be fully stipulated and submitted to the Commission or the Judge for decision at any time in the case.
Yes. While 2200.61(a) allows submission on stipulation, it does not change the burden of proof or the requirements for adducing proof, so the Judge may require evidence or treat a lack of proof according to the law.
No. 2200.61(a) applies to a case that is "fully stipulated," meaning the parties have agreed on the material facts; a partially stipulated case is not covered by this rule as written.
The written stipulation must be signed by the parties or their representatives, as required by 2200.61(a).
No. Submission under 2200.61(a) does not alter procedural burdens or requirements to adduce proof, so parties must still comply with applicable procedural rules such as those in 2200.
A party should consult 2200.40(j) because 2200.61(b) explicitly states that motions for summary judgment are governed by that provision.
No. 2200.61(a) only permits submission on stipulation and does not alter legal rights such as the burden of proof or the effects of failure of proof; appellate rights follow the normal rules applicable to Commission and Judge decisions under 2200.
Parties remain responsible for meeting the same evidentiary burdens they would at a hearing; submission does not excuse them from adducing necessary proof, as stated in 2200.61(a).
No. The letter explains that major settlement agreements are posted to OSHA's web site, while the vast majority are not posted but are still public records subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); see the interpretation at https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0 and the Commission's rule referenced in that letter. The letter clarifies that most settlement agreements are not placed on the OSHA web site but remain disclosable under FOIA.
No. The interpretation states that settlement agreements are public information and, even if not posted to the OSHA web site, would still be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act; see https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0.
Yes. The letter says OSHA posts major settlement agreements on its web site, while the vast majority of settlement agreements are not put on the site though they remain subject to FOIA; see https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/standardinterpretations/2004-09-27-0.