Peabody Coal Company
Peabody Coal Company (FMSHRC KENT 92-1013): Settlement approved for $1,700
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1992 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
Peabody Coal Company agreed to settle a civil penalty proceeding involving its Camp No. 1 Mine. Judge Avram Weisberger approved the settlement under the Mine Act's penalty criteria. Peabody agreed to pay the proposed $1,700 penalty in full, and the case was dismissed after payment.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standards: None stated in the settlement order.
- Outcome: The settlement was approved, and Peabody was ordered to pay $1,700.
- Key point: The judge approved the proposed settlement after reviewing the parties' representations and supporting documentation under the Mine Act's penalty criteria.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
MSHA V. PEABODY COAL
DDATE:
19921109
TTEXT:
Page 2
~1824
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041
SECRETARY OF LABOR, : CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. KENT 92-1013
Petitioner : A. C. No. 15-02709-03766
v. :
: Camp No. 1 Mine
PEABODY COAL COMPANY, :
Respondent :
DECISION
Appearances: W. F. Taylor, Esq., U.S. Department of Labor,
Office of the Solicitor, Nashville, Tennessee,
for Petitioner;
David R. Joest, Esq., Peabody Coal Company,
Henderson, Kentucky, for Respondent.
Before: Judge Weisberger
This case is before me upon a petition for assessment of
civil penalty under Section 105(d) of the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977 (the Act). Pursuant to notice, the case was
scheduled for hearing on September 2, 1992. On that date, prior
to going on the record, counsel indicated that they had just
settled this matter. On October 9, 1992, Petitioner filed a
motion to approve a settlement agreement and to dismiss this
case. Respondent has agreed to pay the proposed penalty of
$1,700 in full. I have considered the representations and
documentation submitted in this case, and I conclude that the
proffered settlement is appropriate under the criteria set forth
in Section 110(i) of the Act.
WHEREFORE, the motion for approval of settlement is GRANTED,
and it is ORDERED that Respondent pay a penalty of $1,700 within
30 days of this order.
Avram Weisberger
Administrative Law Judge
Page 3
~1825
Distribution:
W. F. Taylor, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of
Labor, 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-201, Nashville, TN 37215
(Certified Mail)
David R. Joest, Esq., Midwest Division Counsel, Peabody Coal
Company, 1951 Barrett Court, P.O. Box 1990, Henderson, KY 42420-
1990 (Certified Mail)
nb
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1992, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.