Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Earth Coal Company, Inc. (Commission decision, August 4, 1983)
Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Earth Coal Company, Inc. (FMSHRC LAKE 83-32): Default order remanded for further review
Apply this precedent to your situation
This is citable Commission precedent from 1983, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Earth Coal Company petitioned the Commission to review a default order entered by the chief administrative law judge. The Commission found the default appropriate on the facts available to the judge at the time. Because Earth Coal's later petition offered statements the judge had not evaluated, the Commission granted review and returned the case to him. It directed the judge to consider why the company failed to respond to his April 26, 1983 order to show cause and to take any further proceedings he deemed appropriate.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standard(s): None stated in this procedural order.
- Outcome: Review granted; case remanded to the chief administrative law judge for further proceedings.
- Key point: The judge was given an opportunity to evaluate the operator's new explanation for its failure to respond before the default question was resolved.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
MSHA V. EARTH COAL
DDATE:
19830804
TTEXT:
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC
August 4, 1983
SECRETARY OF LABOR, MINE SAFETY
AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)
v. Docket No. LAKE 83-32
EARTH COAL COMPANY, INC.
DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER
The petition for discretionary review filed by the operator on July 27, 1983 is granted. We find the order of default entered by the chief administrative law judge to have been appropriate under the circumstances then before him. However, the operator, who is pro se in this matter, has made statements in the petition for review which the judge has not had an opportunity to evaluate. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the chief administrative law judge for such proceedings as he may deem appropriate, including but not limited to actions to ascertain and evaluate the operator's reasons for failing to respond to the judge's April 26, 1983 Order to Show Cause.
Richard V. Backley, Commissioner
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