TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Heath & Stich, Inc. v. Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and the United States of America

HEATH & STICH, INC., Petitioner, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor and the United States of America, Respondents

Heath & Stich, Inc. v. Donovan, 641 F.2d 338 (5th Cir. 1981)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 2, 1981
Docket
No. 80-1927
Judges
Gee, Rubin, Randall
Citations
641 F.2d 3389 OSHC (BNA) 14489 BNA OSHC 14481981 U.S. App. LEXIS 14677

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

The Court’s opinion dated April 2,1981 is withdrawn and the following is substituted:

The Secretary of Labor filed a complaint against Heath & Stich, Inc. on August 6, 1975, charging that firm with violating the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq., on June 25, 1975. After an adverse determination by an Administrative Law Judge on August 27, 1976, Robert D. Moran, a commissioner on the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, directed that the case be reviewed by the Commission. That Commission took an unconscionable period, three years and nine months, to review and then affirm the ALJ’s opinion. Heath & Stich mailed its notice of appeal from the Commission’s decision timely, but it arrived at the office of the Clerk of Court one day late. The Secretary then filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. To extenuate the apparent anomaly of the dismissal of a matter almost four years under consideration because the mail arrived one day late, the Secretary correctly notes that the Commission’s delay in ruling was not his fault.

The statute that determines and limits our jurisdiction requires that an appeal be “timely” filed, and mailing is not sufficient to constitute filing. 29 U.S.C. § 660 (a).

See Lashley v. Ford Motor Co., 518 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1975); compare In Matter of Bad Bubba Racing Products, Inc., 609 F.2d 815 (5th Cir. 1980). The regulations permitting service by mail apply only to notices governed by them and cannot alter the controlling statute.

We, therefore, have no alternative but to perform our duty and to dismiss the appeal. In doing so, we cannot refrain from noting that the OSHA Review Commission, while it may be independent, might respond to requests for action in cases that had been pending before it an undue amount of time, and that, whether it alone was torpid or whether others could have prompted it to bring matters to decision, the combination of a rigid statutory scheme with such protracted bureaucratic procedures, works a great injustice.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

1989: 119892026peak 1989 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Gaines Lashley & Gaines Lashley as Next of Friend for Ronald Gaines Lashley v. Ford Motor Co. & Richardson Ford Co., 518 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1975) 39
Bad Bubba Racing Prods., Inc. v. Huenefeld, 609 F.2d 815 (5th Cir. 1980) 22

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list