Connection lost
Server error
Chao v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employer egregiously violated asbestos safety rules. The court affirmed an agency decision to consolidate multiple per-employee citations into single per-instance citations, limiting the Secretary of Labor’s discretion based on the specific language of the regulations and the reasonableness of their application.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the test for determining the appropriate unit of prosecution under OSHA regulations, holding that the regulatory language dictates whether violations are cited per-instance or per-employee. It also demonstrates the limits of judicial deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations.
Chao v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Eric K. Ho purchased a defunct hospital knowing it contained asbestos. He hired 11 undocumented workers for renovations, including asbestos removal, but willfully failed to provide any training or personal protective equipment, such as respirators, as required by specific Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. Ho was aware of the hazardous conditions, visiting the site almost daily. Following an explosion caused when a worker tapped an unmarked gas line on Ho’s instruction, OSHA investigated. The Secretary of Labor issued numerous citations, including 11 willful violations for failing to provide respirators and 11 willful violations for failing to provide training, with each citation corresponding to one of the 11 exposed employees. On review, the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (the “Commission”) affirmed that Ho had committed the violations but vacated 20 of the 22 citations, ruling that the regulations only permitted a single citation for the failure to have a respirator program and a single citation for the failure to have a training program, rather than per-employee citations. The Commission also found that Ho’s corporations were not his alter egos and that his violation of the OSH Act’s general duty clause regarding the gas line was not willful. The Secretary of Labor petitioned the Fifth Circuit for review.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission err by concluding that OSHA’s asbestos respirator and training standards authorize citations on a per-instance, rather than a per-employee, basis, thereby limiting the Secretary of Labor’s prosecutorial discretion?
No. The Commission’s decision to vacate the per-employee citations was affirmed. The Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipi
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission err by concluding that OSHA’s asbestos respirator and training standards authorize citations on a per-instance, rather than a per-employee, basis, thereby limiting the Secretary of Labor’s prosecutorial discretion?
Conclusion
This decision underscores that an agency's discretion to penalize regulatory violations is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
Legal Rule
The test for whether an OSH Act regulation permits multiple or single Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariat
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the appropriate unit of prosecution for the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in re
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The unit of prosecution for an OSHA violation depends on the