Don Erickson, employed by Raymond Sand & Gravel, Inc. (Commission decision, June 22, 2007)

Plain-English summary

MSHA assessed Don Erickson individually for three orders and one citation already contested by his employer, Raymond Sand & Gravel. Acting without counsel, Erickson believed the Secretary's petition against the company also covered his individual penalties and did not file a separate contest. After the individual assessment became final, he asked the Commission to reopen it, and the Secretary did not oppose. The Commission remanded the matter for a judge to decide whether Erickson had good cause for the missed contest and whether relief from the final order should be granted.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b), 2700.26, and 2700.27; 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(a) and 820(c)
• Outcome: The individual penalty assessment was remanded for a good-cause determination.
• Key point: An individual assessment under Mine Act section 110(c) must be contested separately from the operator's assessment, but a mistaken failure may support reopening.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

June 22, 2007

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

DON ERICKSON, employed by

RAYMOND SAND & GRAVEL, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. CENT 2007-209-M
A.C. No. 14-00458-110978 A

BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan and Young, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2000) (“Mine Act”). On May 31, 2007, the Commission received from Don Erickson, the President of Raymond Sand & Gravel, Inc. (“RS&G”), a motion made by counsel to reopen a penalty assessment against Erickson under section 110(c) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C.
§ 820(c), that had become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

Under the Commission’s Procedural Rules, an individual charged under section 110(c) has 30 days following receipt of the proposed penalty assessment within which to notify the Secretary of Labor that he or she wishes to contest the penalty. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.26. If the individual fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.27.

On February 12, 2007, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued proposed penalty assessment No. 00110978A to Erickson, pursuant to section 110(c) of the Mine Act, for three orders and one citation for which RS&G had already received, and contested, proposed penalties in a separate proposed assessment. Shortly thereafter, the Secretary filed and served RS&G with a petition for assessment of penalty for the penalties it was contesting. Erickson, acting pro se at that time, mistakenly assumed that the petition also included the penalties MSHA was seeking to collect from him as an individual, and consequently did not separately contest those penalties. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Erickson’s request to reopen the penalty assessment.

We have held that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessments that have become final Commission orders under section 105(a). Jim Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993) (“JWR”). In evaluating requests to reopen final section 105(a) orders, the Commission has found guidance in Rule 60(b) under which, for example, a party could be entitled to relief from a final order of the Commission on the basis of inadvertence or mistake. See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b) (“the Commission and its Judges shall be guided so far as practicable by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); JWR, 15 FMSHRC at 787. We have also observed that default is a harsh remedy and that, if the defaulting party can make a showing of good cause for a failure to timely respond, the case may be reopened and appropriate proceedings on the merits permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc., 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

Having reviewed Erickson’s request, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Erickson’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposal and whether relief from the final order should be granted. If it is determined that such relief is appropriate, this case shall proceed pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.

______

Michael F. Duffy, Chairman

______

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

______

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Distribution

Adele L. Abrams, Esq.

Law Office of Adele L. Abrams, P.C.

4740 Corridor Place, Suite D

Beltsville, MD 20705

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor 

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001-2021