Case consolidation procedures

Cases may be consolidated when there are common parties, common questions of law or fact, or other circumstances where justice or the administration of the Act require consolidation. See 2200.9 for the rule that authorizes consolidation.

• Consolidation can be based on shared parties or shared legal/factual issues.
• The rule also allows consolidation in broader circumstances if it serves justice or efficient administration.

A motion to consolidate may be filed by any party to the proceedings, provided the motion conforms to the motion requirements in 2200.40, and cases also may be consolidated by the Judge or by the Commission on their own motion. See 2200.9.

• If you are a party, your motion must meet the procedural rules in 2200.40.
• Judges and the Commission have independent authority to consolidate without a party motion.

No. Consolidation does not strictly require identical parties; the rule permits consolidation when there are common parties, common questions of law or fact, or other circumstances that make consolidation appropriate. See 2200.9.

• Shared parties are one common ground for consolidation, but not the only one.
• Even cases with different parties may be consolidated if common legal or factual issues or considerations of justice justify it.

It means a party may move to consolidate but the motion must follow the procedural requirements set out in 2200.40; for example, the motion should be properly served and formatted as that section requires. See 2200.9.

• The text in 2200.9 explicitly ties party motions to 2200.40 procedural rules.
• For specifics about timing, form, and service, consult 2200.40.

Yes. A Judge or the Commission may consolidate cases on their own motion without a party's request. This authority is explicitly provided in 2200.9.

• The rule gives the adjudicator or the Commission discretion to consolidate when appropriate for justice or efficient administration.

No, 2200.9 states that consolidation may occur where there are "common questions of law or fact" but does not define the precise test for what qualifies as common. See 2200.9.

• In practice, judges look for overlapping legal issues or factual evidence that make combined proceedings more efficient and fair.
• When preparing a motion, identify the specific legal issues or factual overlaps to help the Judge assess whether the questions are sufficiently common.

No. 2200.9 does not require unanimous party agreement for consolidation; the Judge or the Commission may order consolidation regardless of consent if the criteria are met. See 2200.9.

• A party can move to consolidate, but consent is not a statutory prerequisite.
• Because the rule allows consolidation on the Judge's or Commission's own motion, consent is not mandatory.

A good motion should clearly state the statutory ground for consolidation, identify the common parties or the common questions of law or fact, explain why consolidation serves justice or efficient administration, and comply with the procedural requirements in 2200.40. See 2200.9.

• Provide concrete examples of overlapping issues or evidence.
• Propose a practical plan for scheduling or managing the consolidated matters.
• Ensure the motion follows the form, service, and timing rules in 2200.40.

No, 2200.9 itself authorizes consolidation but does not address severance or how to undo consolidation. See 2200.9.

• Because the rule is silent on severance, parties should raise requests about undoing consolidation with the Judge, who controls case management and may address severance under the Judge's procedural authority.
• For motion practice, follow the procedural requirements in 2200.40.

Not typically. 2200.9 allows consolidation where there are common parties, common questions of law or fact, or other circumstances where justice or the administration of the Act require it; purely unrelated cases without those connections generally would not meet this standard. See 2200.9.

• Efficiency is a legitimate consideration, but consolidation normally requires some legal or factual link or a strong justice-based rationale.
• Explain both the efficiency gains and the specific connection between cases when seeking consolidation.

No. The regulation authorizes consolidation "on the motion of any party conforming to 2200.40," or on the Judge's or Commission's own motion; it does not authorize non-parties to file consolidation motions. See 2200.9 and the motion rules in 2200.40.

• If you are not a party but believe consolidation is necessary, consider intervening or asking a party to move, subject to the applicable rules.

Consolidation does not change OSHA's general practice about posting citations, proposed penalties, or major settlement agreements; those posting practices are governed by public disclosure policies and FOIA, not by the consolidation rule. See 2200.9 and OSHA's interpretation about website postings at OSHA website citation postings.

• OSHA posts citations and proposed penalties as public information, consistent with FOIA.
• Major settlement agreements are posted on the web site, while the majority of settlement agreements are not posted but remain subject to FOIA, as explained in the OSHA interpretation linked above.

Consolidation typically saves time and resources, avoids duplicative testimony and evidence, and ensures consistent rulings on common legal or factual issues. See 2200.9.

• It can reduce repeated discovery and overlapping hearings.
• It helps promote consistent decisions on identical legal questions.
• Judges and the Commission may consolidate to improve the administration of the Act when these benefits are present.

If a party believes consolidation was improperly granted, they should follow the procedural remedies and objection process available under the Review Commission's rules and raise the concern formally in the record; 2200.9 itself authorizes consolidation but does not set out appeal procedures. See 2200.9 and consult the procedural rules in 2200.40.

• Preserve objections in the record and comply with any required interlocutory or post-decision review steps.
• Because 2200.9 does not specify the review route, consult the Judge's orders and the Review Commission's procedural provisions for the appropriate steps.

A party should explain concretely how consolidation will prevent inconsistent results, promote judicial economy, conserve resources, or otherwise advance fair and efficient resolution of the matters—showing specific facts and legal overlaps that make separate proceedings inefficient or unjust. See 2200.9.

• Provide examples of overlapping witnesses, duplicative motions, or identical legal questions.
• Show how consolidation would streamline proceedings without prejudicing any party.