Karst Robbins Coal Company, Inc. (ALJ decision, June 5, 1986)
Karst Robbins Coal Company, Inc. (FMSHRC KENT 85-190): One citation vacated in $600 settlement
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1986 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent say, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Karst Robbins Coal Company and the Secretary proposed a settlement of two violations after a hearing. They agreed that Citation No. 2476390 would be vacated and that the company would pay $600 on Citation No. 2476391. Judge Joseph B. Kennedy reviewed the hearing evidence and found the proposal consistent with the Mine Act's purposes. He approved the settlement, ordered payment within 30 days, and directed MSHA to vacate the first citation. The public decision does not identify the underlying safety standards.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standards: The public decision does not identify them.
- Outcome: Settlement approved; Citation No. 2476390 vacated and $600 due on Citation No. 2476391.
- Key point: The judge approved the parties' split disposition after reviewing the hearing record.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. KARST ROBBINS COAL
DDATE:
19860605
TTEXT:
~912
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENTALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. KENT 85-190
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 15-10904-03534
v. No. 6 Mine
KARST ROBBINS COAL COMPANY,
INC.,
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Appearances: Charles F. Merz, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Nashville, Tennessee, for Petitioner;
Mr. Edward W. Karst, Operator, Louellen, Kentucky, for Respondent
Before: Judge Kennedy
These matters came on for a decision after hearing in Hazard, Kentucky, on May 22, 1986. At that time, the parties proposed settlement of the two violations charged as follows:
CITATION/ORDER
ACTION/PENALTY
2476390
Vacate
2476391
$600.00
Based on an independent evaluation and de novo review of the circumstances, as proffered in the parties' prehearing submissions and in the evidence adduced at the hearing, the trial judge found the settlement proposed was in accord with the purposes and policy of the Act.
~913
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the settlement be, and hereby is, APPROVED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the operator pay the amount of the settlement agreed upon, $600, within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order and that MSHA forthwith vacate Citation 2476390.
Joseph B. Kennedy
Administrative Law Judge
What applies to your situation today?
This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent against your facts, 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