Kevin Phillips, employed by Reostone, LLC (Commission decision, November 10, 2008)

Plain-English summary

MSHA proposed $4,150 in individual penalties against Kevin Phillips under Mine Act section 110(c) for six citations. The record did not establish when Phillips received the assessment. In January 2008 he wrote MSHA that he wanted to contest the penalties and apparently included the assessment form. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission remanded for the Chief ALJ to determine whether Phillips had good cause for any late filing and whether relief from the final order should be granted.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.26 and 2700.27; 30 U.S.C. § 820(c)
• Outcome: The individual reopening request was remanded for a determination of good cause and entitlement to relief.
• Key point: The receipt date and the circumstances of an individual's later contest must be established before a final section 110(c) assessment can 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 10, 2008

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

KEVIN PHILLIPS, EMPLOYED BY

REOSTONE, LLC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. KENT 2008-1294
A.C. No. 15-00008-120878 A

BEFORE: Duffy, 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. (2000) (“Mine Act”). On July 14, 2008, the Commission received from Kevin Phillips (“Phillips”) a letter in which he seeks to reopen a penalty assessment under section 110(c) of the Mine Act that had become 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 June 22, 2007, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued a proposed penalty assessment of $4150 as a result of six citations issued to Phillips. It is unclear when Phillips actually received the assessment. In a letter dated January 30, 2008, to MSHA’s Civil Penalty Compliance Office, Phillips stated that he wanted to contest the proposed penalties and apparently attached the assessment form. In response, the Secretary states that she does not object to the reopening of the penalty assessment.

We have held that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessment forms 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 Phillips’ request and the Secretary’s response, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Phillips’ 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 

______

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Kevin Phillips

18003 Arlington Meadows Ct.

Fisherville, KY 40023

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Myra James, Chief

Office of the Civil Penalty Compliance

MSHA

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-3939

Christian P. Barber, Esq. 

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

618 Church Street, Suite 230

Nashville, TN 37219-2456

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