FMSHRC Commission decision Docket LAKE 2023-0037 Decided May 16, 2024 Remanded

Secretary of Labor v. Hamilton County Coal, LLC

Secretary of Labor v. Hamilton County Coal, LLC (FMSHRC LAKE 2023-0037): Delivery uncertainty and wrong email excused default

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2024, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Decision of the Commission
This is a decision of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, the highest level of agency review, citable as Commission precedent. It may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance under 30 U.S.C. § 816; check subsequent history before relying on it. The full text below is from the official FMSHRC release.
About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official FMSHRC release. The full text is the Commission's own document.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Hamilton County Coal timely contested a penalty but did not answer the Secretary's later petition, leading to a default order. Its safety director discovered the default while reviewing a different assessment and then learned that the case had been transferred to an MSHA representative. The show-cause order listed the director's email incorrectly, the director said he never received the petition, and the Secretary had no return receipt showing delivery. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission found excusable neglect, vacated the default, and remanded the case.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited authority: 30 U.S.C. §§ 823(d)(1) and 823(d)(2)(A)(i)
  • Outcome: The default order was vacated and the proceeding was remanded.
  • Key point: Uncertain petition delivery and an incorrect distribution email supported relief when the operator had timely contested the penalty.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331
PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W., SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON,
DC 20004-1710

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA)

                    v.

HAMILTON
COUNTY COAL, LLC

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket
No. LAKE 2023-0037

A.C.
No. 11-03203-565749

BEFORE: Jordan, Chair;
Althen, Rajkovich, Baker, and Marvit, 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. (2018) (“Mine Act”). On May 26, 2023, the Commission received from Hamilton
County Coal, LLC a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment proceeding and
relieve it from the Default Order entered against it.

        On

February 27, 2023, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued an Order to Show
Cause in response to Hamilton’s perceived failure to answer the Secretary of
Labor’s December 27, 2022, Petition for Assessment of Civil Penalty. By its
terms, the Order to Show Cause was deemed a Default Order on March 30, 2023,
when it appeared that the operator had not filed an answer within 30 days.

Hamilton County Coal requests reopening
based on excusable neglect. The operator timely returned a contest of the civil
penalty associated with Citation No. 9195453 listed on Proposed Assessment No.
0005655749. When the operator's safety director was reviewing a separate
proposed penalty assessment, he noticed that the form listed Docket No. LAKE
2023-0037 as a final decision and that payment was pending for the penalty
associated with Citation No. 919453. The Safety Director had no record of the
docket number but discovered upon investigation the docket had been transferred
to a Conference and Litigation Representative ("CLR"). The CLR
provided the safety director with a copy of the subject petition, and March 29
order. The Safety Director noted that his email address had been listed
incorrectly in the order's distribution list, and was informed that MSHA did
not have a return receipt showing delivery of the petition. The safety director
states that as a miner's representative, he should have received a copy of the
petition at his home, but that he did not.

The Secretary does not oppose the motion
to reopen. She submits that the petition was delivered to the operator's
address of record, but that she does not know why the operator did not receive
it. The Secretary further states that she does not know, and Hamilton has not
explained, why the operator did not follow up on its contest. The Secretary
encourages the operator to be more vigilant with receiving and processing
petitions and to comply with the Commission's procedural rules.

        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 Hamilton’s request and the Secretary’s
response, we find that the operator’s failure to properly file a
response was the result of excusable neglect. In the interest of justice, we hereby reopen the proceeding and vacate the Default
Order. Accordingly, this case is remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge
for further proceedings pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s
Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.

/s/ Mary Lu Jordan

                                                                                Mary

Lu Jordan, Chair

/s/ William I. Althen

William I. Althen, Commissioner

/s/ Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr.

Marco M. Rajkovich, Jr., Commissioner

/s/ Timothy J. Baker

Timothy J. Baker, Commissioner

/s/ Moshe Z. Marvit

Moshe Z. Marvit, Commissioner

Distribution:

Mike
Hathaway

Hamilton
County Coal, LLC

18033
County Rd. 500 East

Dahlgren,
IL 62828

[email protected]

Tyler
H. Fields, Esq.

Hamilton
County Coal, LLC

1146
Monarch Street, Suite 350

Lexington,
KY 40513

[email protected]

Emily
Toler-Scott, Esq.

Office
of the Solicitor

U.S.
Department of Labor

201
12th St. South, Suite 401

Arlington,
VA 22202-5450

[email protected]

April
Nelson, Esq.

Associate
Solicitor

Office
of the Solicitor

U.S.
Department of Labor

Division
of Mine Safety and Health

201
12th Street South, Suite 401

Arlington,
VA 22202

[email protected]

Melanie
Garris

Office
of Civil Penalty Compliance

Mine
Safety and Health Administration

U.S.
Department of Labor

201
12th St. South, Suite 401

Arlington,
VA 22202-5450

[email protected]

Chief
Administrative Law Judge Glynn Voisin

Federal
Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

Office
of the Chief Administrative Law Judge

1331
Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Suite 520N

Washington,
DC 20004-1710

[email protected]

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read Commission precedent from 2024. Ezel checks whether it still stands, including any court review since, and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.