Secretary of Labor v. Midwest Mechanical Industrial Services (Commission decision, March 5, 2018)

Secretary of Labor v. Midwest Mechanical Industrial Services (FMSHRC CENT 2016-510 M): Two-case filing mix-up excused

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
CENT 2016-510 M
Decided
March 5, 2018
Outcome
Remanded
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-01

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2018, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2018
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance under 30 U.S.C. § 816; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Midwest Mechanical said it mailed a penalty contest before the deadline, but it had no certified-mail record and MSHA did not receive the filing. Documents attached to the reopening motion instead suggested that Midwest later combined the contest with paperwork for a different pending case. Even under that later date, the filing occurred only four days after the assessment became final. Midwest sought reopening within a month, before any delinquency notice, had filed no similar motion in the previous two years, and faced no opposition from the Secretary. The Commission found that confusion between the two cases caused the missed deadline, reopened the assessment, and remanded it for a penalty petition within 45 days.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 815(a) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)
  • Outcome: The final penalty assessment was reopened and remanded, with a penalty petition due within 45 days.
  • Key point: Confusion between two pending assessments supported reopening when the operator acted within days of finality and promptly sought relief.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON,
DC 20004-1710

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH  

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)         

v.

MIDWEST
MECHANICAL INDUSTRIAL

SERVICES

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. CENT 2016-510-M

A.C.
No. 25-00998-413282 A8144

BEFORE:    Althen,
Acting Chairman; Jordan, Young, and Cohen, 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. (2012) (“Mine Act”).  On August 16, 2016, the Commission received from Midwest Mechanical Industrial Services (“Midwest”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment 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
section 105(a), an operator who wishes to contest a proposed penalty must notify the Secretary of Labor no later than 30 days after receiving the proposed penalty assessment.  If the operator fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission.  30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

We
have held, however, 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 orders, the Commission has found guidance in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under which the Commission may relieve a party from a final order of the Commission on the basis of mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, or other reason justifying relief.  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).

Records
of the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) indicate that the proposed assessment was delivered on June 29, 2016, and became a final order of the Commission on July 29, 2016.  Midwest asserts that it mailed the contest on July 14, 2016.  The operator claims that the contest was never received by MSHA, but because the contest was not sent via certified mail, no record of the mailing exists.  Midwest asserts that it contacted MSHA repeatedly to see if the package had arrived.

Attached
to its motion to reopen, Midwest included a copy of the contest for this case. The contest included a cover page from a separate case (Case No. 000415616) [1] and the remittance coupon for that case and the case that Midwest seeks to reopen (Case No. 000413282).  The cover page was signed by Jeff Allen, Midwest Vice President, on August 2, 2016.  These facts appear to contradict Midwest’s claim that it filed its contest on July 14, 2016.  Instead, it appears likely that Midwest mistakenly included the contest of Case No. 00413282 when it subsequently contested Case No. 000415616 on August 2, 2016.

Midwest
filed its request to reopen less than one month after the assessment became final and before a delinquency notice was issued.  Moreover, even if Midwest did not file its contest of Case No. 000413282 until August 2, 2016, this was only four days after the assessment became a final order of the Commission. Midwest has not filed any other motions to reopen with the Commission in the last two years.  The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen.

Having
reviewed Midwest’s request and the Secretary’s
response, we find that Midwest inadvertently failed to timely contest this matter because it mistakenly confused two pending cases.  In the interest of justice, we hereby reopen this matter and remand it to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.  Accordingly, consistent with Rule 28, the Secretary shall file a petition for assessment of penalty within 45 days of the date of this order.  See 29 C.F.R. § 2700.28.

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Acting Chairman

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

/s/ Michael G. Young

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

/s/ Robert F. Cohen, Jr.

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Jeff
Allen

Vice
President

Midwest
Mechanical Industrial Services

P.O.
Box 164

Logan,
IA 51546

Ali
Beydoun, Esq.

Office
of the Solicitor

U.S.
Department of Labor

201
12th St. South, Suite 401

Arlington,
VA 22202-5450

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal
Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

1331
Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Suite 520N

Washington,
DC 20004-1710

Melanie
Garris

Office
of Civil Penalty Compliance

Mine
Safety and Health Administration

U.S.
Department of Labor

201
12th St. South, Suite 500

Arlington,
VA 22202-5450

[1]
This case was properly contested and was assigned Docket No. CENT 2016-496-M. On June 28, 2017, Chief Judge Lesnick approved a motion to withdraw Midwest’s contest and the case was dismissed.

Does this precedent still control your case?

Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and applies it to your situation with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace