Yes. A direction for review establishes the Commission's jurisdiction to review the entire case unless the Commission orders otherwise, and the Commission decides which issues will be decided on review. See the jurisdiction provision in 2200.92(a).
Yes. The Commission has discretion to determine the issues to be decided on review and may limit those issues as it sees fit. See the statement that issues are within the Commission's discretion in 2200.92(a).
A Commissioner may do so, and the Commissioner must act within 30 days after the docketing date of the Judge's report. See the timing and authority in 2200.92(b).
A Commissioner may consider factors such as whether the case raises novel questions of law or policy or involves a conflict between Administrative Law Judges' decisions, among other discretionary factors. See the list of factors in 2200.92(b).
Ordinarily the Commission will consider the issues specified in the direction for review or any later order that the Commission issues. See the guidance on the scope of issues in 2200.92(b).
Generally no; the Commission will ordinarily not review issues that the Judge did not have the opportunity to pass upon, although it may do so in its discretion under certain circumstances. See the rule on issues not raised before the Judge in 2200.92(c).
The Commission may consider factors such as whether there was good cause for not raising the issue before the Judge, how factual the issue is, whether raising the issue on review would disrupt or delay proceedings, whether an adverse party's ability to press a claim or defense would be impaired, and whether considering the issue would avoid injustice or ensure a lawful and fact-based judgment. See 2200.92(c).
Good cause can include circumstances such as discovery of significant new evidence after the Judge's proceedings, procedural obstacles that made raising the issue before the Judge impossible, or other reasonable explanations for why the issue could not have been presented earlier; the Commission will weigh such explanations in its discretion. See the Commission's discretionary factors in 2200.92(c).
The Commission is less likely to accept purely factual issues raised for the first time on review because the Judge did not have the opportunity to resolve the facts, and the Commission will consider the degree to which the issue is factual when exercising its discretion. See 2200.92(c).
Probably not; the Commission may decline to review an issue if considering it on review would significantly disrupt or delay the proceedings, and it will weigh that disruption among other discretionary factors. See 2200.92(c).
Yes. The Commission explicitly considers whether allowing a new issue on review would impair an adverse party's ability to press a claim or defense when deciding whether to exercise discretion to review that issue. See 2200.92(c).
Yes. One stated factor a Commissioner may consider in deciding to direct review on the Commissioner's own motion is whether the case involves a conflict between Administrative Law Judges' decisions. See 2200.92(b).
Yes. 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, so the Commission can specify additional issues by issuing a later order. See 2200.92(b).
Present and argue the issues fully before the Judge and make sure they are in the record, because the Commission will ordinarily not review issues the Judge did not have the opportunity to decide; demonstrating good cause for any omission is important if an issue must be raised later. See the warning about issues not raised before the Judge in 2200.92(c).
Yes. The Commission may exercise its discretion to review an issue not raised before the Judge if considering the new issue would avoid injustice or ensure that judgment is rendered in accordance with law and facts. See the factors listed in 2200.92(c).
It means a Commissioner who wants to direct review on the Commissioner's own motion must issue that direction within 30 days after the Judge's report is docketed; failing to act within that window removes the Commissioner’s power to initiate review on that specific procedural basis. See the timing rule in 2200.92(b).
It means that while a direction for review normally establishes Commission jurisdiction over the entire case, the Commission retains the authority to limit its jurisdiction or scope of review by issuing an order that narrows the review. See 2200.92(a).
No; not all settlement agreements are posted. OSHA stated that major settlement agreements are posted on the OSHA website, but the vast majority of settlement agreements are not put on the site, although they remain subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act; the letter also notes that Commission rules at 29 CFR 2200.100(c) address posting of settlement agreements. See OSHA's interpretation on OSHA website citation postings (Sept. 27, 2004).
Yes. The Commission considers the degree to which an issue is factual as a separate factor, which means legal issues are more likely to be considered on review than purely factual ones the Judge never addressed. See the distinction in 2200.92(c).