Secretary of Labor v. Image Materials (Commission decision, November 30, 2020)
Secretary of Labor v. Image Materials (FMSHRC CENT 2020-0017): Allegedly lost answer sent back for good-cause finding
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2020, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Image Materials defaulted after it appeared not to answer the Secretary's penalty petition or the ALJ's show-cause order. The operator said it timely sent its contest to MSHA's Dallas office and later sent it again to the Arlington office, but the filing was lost after receipt. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission remanded the case for the Chief ALJ to decide whether good cause excused Image's failure to respond and to conduct any further appropriate proceedings.
Decision snapshot
- Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1)-(2); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.1(b), 2700.69(b), 2700.70(a)
- Outcome: The case was remanded for a good-cause determination.
- Key point: A disputed claim that an answer was timely sent but lost required factual consideration by the Chief ALJ.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N
WASHINGTON,
D.C. 20004‑1710
SECRETARY OF LABOR, :
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
:
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
:
:
v.
: Docket No. CENT 2020-0017
: A.C. No. 41-04147-499677
IMAGE MATERIALS :
:
BEFORE: Rajkovich, Chairman; Althen and Traynor, 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 March 17, 2020, the Commission received from Image Materials (“Image”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment proceeding and relieve it from the Default Order entered against it.
On January
31, 2020, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued an Order to Show Cause in response to Image’s failure to answer the Secretary of Labor’s November 25, 2019 Petition for Assessment of Civil Penalty. By its terms, the Order to Show Cause was deemed a Default Order on February 21, 2020, when it appeared that the operator had not filed an answer within 20 days.
Image
asserts that it timely contested the Petition for Assessment of Civil Penalty and that its contest was lost after it was received. It states that on December 23, 2019, its contest was sent to the MSHA Dallas office, and again to the Arlington office on February 5, 2020. The Secretary does not oppose the request to reopen, but urges the operator to take steps to ensure that future penalty contests are timely filed.
The
Judge’s jurisdiction in this matter terminated when the default occurred. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.69(b). Under the Mine Act and the Commission’s procedural rules, relief from a judge’s decision may be sought by filing a petition for discretionary review within 30 days of its issuance. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2)(A)(i); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.70(a). If the Commission does not direct review within 40 days of a decision’s issuance, it becomes a final decision of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). Consequently, the Judge’s order here has become a final decision of the Commission.
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”); Jim Walter Res., Inc ., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993). 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 will be permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc ., 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).
Having
reviewed Image’s request and the Secretary’s response, in the interest of justice, we hereby remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists to excuse Image’s failure to respond to the show cause order, and for further proceedings as appropriate .
/s/
Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.
Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Chairman
/s/ William I. Althen
William I. Althen, Commissioner
/s/ Arthur R. Traynor, III
Arthur R.
Traynor, III, Commissioner
Distribution:
Vaughn Proffitt, CEO
Image Materials
P.O. Box 1693
Roanoke, TX 76262
Emily Toler Scott, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
Division of Mine Safety and
Health
201 12th Street South, Suite
401
Arlington, VA 22202-5450
Melanie Garris
USDOL/MSHA, OAASEI/CPCO
201 12th Street South, Suite
401
Arlington, VA 22202
Chief Administrative Law
Judge Glynn F. Voisin
Federal Mine Safety Health Review Commission
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 520N
Washington, DC 20004-1710
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