Ohio County Coal Company (Commission decision, November 30, 2006)
Ohio County Coal Company (FMSHRC KENT 2006-469): Clerical-error reopening request remanded
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 2006, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Ohio County Coal said a clerical error caused it to miss the deadline for contesting penalties assessed for several citations. The company asked the Commission to reopen the final assessment, and the Secretary did not oppose the request. The Commission remanded for the chief judge to determine whether the clerical mistake established good cause and whether relief from the final penalty order should be granted.
Decision snapshot
- Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. § 815(a)
- Outcome: The reopening request was remanded for findings on good cause and possible relief from the final penalty order.
- Key point: A claimed clerical error requires fact-finding on good cause before a final assessment may be reopened.
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
November 30, 2006
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
v.
OHIO COUNTY COAL COMPANY,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Docket No. KENT 2006-469
A.C. No. 15-17587-90922
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 August 25, 2006, the Commission received from Ohio County Coal Company (“Ohio County”) a motion from counsel 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) of the Mine Act, 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).
On June 14, 2006, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued a proposed penalty assessment, A.C. No. 000090922, to Ohio County for several citations. Ohio County states that, due to a clerical error on its part, it inadvertently failed to contest the penalties. The Secretary states that she does not oppose Ohio County’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) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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 Ohio County’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 Ohio County’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
Julia K. Shreve, Esq.
Jackson Kelly, PLLC
1600 Laidley Tower
P.O. Box 553
Charleston, WV 25322
W. Christian Schumann, Esq.
Office of the Solicitor
U.S. Department of Labor
1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor
Arlington, VA 22209
Myra James, Chief
Office of Civil Penalty Compliance, MSHA
U.S. Department of Labor,
1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor
Arlington, VA 22209
Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500
Washington, D.C. 20001
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