# Building & Construction Trades Department v. Brock

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · February 2, 1988 · 838 F.2d 1258

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7855663

## Case

- **Full name:** BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO v. William E. BROCK, Secretary of Labor, Asbestos Institute, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Intervenors AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Asbestos Institute, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Intervenors ASBESTOS INFORMATION ASSOCIATION/NORTH AMERICA, ETC. v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, Asbestos Institute, Building and Construction Trades Department, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Intervenors ASBESTOS INFORMATION ASSOCIATION/NORTH AMERICA ETC. v. OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, Asbestos Institute, Building and Construction Trades Department, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Intervenors
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** February 2, 1988
- **Citations:** 838 F.2d 1258; 267 U.S. App. D.C. 308
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Weigel
- **Judges:** Buckley, California, Northern, Weigel, Williams
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7855663

## Opinion text

WEIGEL, Senior District Judge,
dissenting in part:
I respectfully dissent only from that portion of the opinion which fails to call for medical surveillance for employees in the construction industry to the same extent required for those in general industry. The record makes it clear that even if exposure to asbestos for 30 days or less in a single year is not dangerous to health, there is such danger from exposure to large quantities over an extended period of years. Since nothing in the record suggests that the relevant standard for construction workers should be different from those in general industry, I would require OSHA to reconsider its decision on this matter.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7855663. Public record. Not legal advice.