Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Durez Division of Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
906 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1990)


Facts

Durez Division of Occidental Chemical Corporation (Durez) (defendant) was a chemical manufacturer that produced Durez 153, a chemical compound composed of phenol and formaldehyde. Durez’s customers were downstream manufacturers that used Durez 153 to make heat-resistant products. Employees of downstream manufacturers who handled Durez 153 were exposed to small amounts of phenol, a hazardous chemical. Pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Act (Act), 29 U.S.C. §§ 651-78, the secretary of labor (Secretary) promulgated the Hazard Communications Standard (HCS), which required manufacturers to distribute Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) to downstream manufacturers. The HCS required manufacturers to disclose on the MSDS all potential health hazards caused by the chemicals used in their products. In 1988, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (plaintiff) issued a citation to Durez on the ground that Durez had failed to disclose all potential hazards on its MSDS. Durez’s MSDS had disclosed minor risks of phenol exposure, including irritation to the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract, but did not disclose that overexposure to phenol could result in damage to the liver, kidneys, and heart. Durez contested the citation, arguing that downstream employees would not foreseeably be exposed to enough phenol to pose a realistic risk of damage to the liver, kidneys, or heart. The Occupational Safety and Health Review Administration (OSHRA) determined that Durez was required to disclose all potential health hazards of phenol, regardless of any foreseeable exposure to downstream manufacturers. Durez petitioned for review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.