Turris Coal Company v. Secretary of Labor (MSHA) (ALJ decision, January 15, 1986)

Turris Coal Company v. Secretary of Labor (MSHA) (FMSHRC LAKE 85-12-R): Settlement motion denied

Decision type

ALJ decision

Dockets

LAKE 85-12-R, LAKE 85-31-R, LAKE 85-32-R, LAKE 85-35-R, LAKE 85-53, LAKE 85-68, LAKE 85-70

Decided

January 15, 1986

Presiding judge

James A. Broderick

Outcome

Procedural

Precedential status

Interlocutory order, not final

Checked against source

2026-10-20

Cited standards

30 C.F.R. § 75.200 30 C.F.R. § 75.503 30 U.S.C. § 820(i)

Official source

Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

PDF

View Official PDF

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.

Interlocutory ALJ order, not Commission precedent

This order denied a proposed settlement while the consolidated cases remained pending for a hearing. It did not dispose of the cases or become a final decision under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). This order is not Commission precedent. 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 agency's own release.

Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Turris Coal Company and the Secretary asked the judge to approve a settlement and dismiss seven consolidated contest and penalty dockets involving four alleged violations at the Elkhart Mine. The proposal reduced the penalty for an inadequately supported roof from $900 to $750, but Judge James A. Broderick found the stated reason insufficient in light of the motion's description of the hazard and negligence. He also found that the motion did not justify a reduced penalty for a violation involving a battery powered scoop that allegedly was not in permissible condition. The parties proposed paying the original assessments for two other roof control violations. The judge denied the motion and said the matters would be rescheduled for hearing; this order did not decide whether the alleged violations occurred.

Decision snapshot

Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 75.200 and 75.503; penalty criteria in 30 U.S.C. § 820(i).
Outcome: Motion to approve settlement and dismiss the cases denied; hearing to be rescheduled.
Key point: The proposed reductions lacked sufficient justification under the penalty criteria, so the consolidated cases continued.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
TURRIS COAL V. SOL (MSHA)
DDATE:
19860115
TTEXT:
~77

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

TURRIS COAL COMPANY,
CONTEST PROCEEDINGS
CONTESTANT
Docket No. LAKE 85-12-R
v. Citation No. 2323276; 10/16/84

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
Docket No. LAKE 85-31-R
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Citation No. 2491962; 12/12/84
RESPONDENT
Docket No. LAKE 85-32-R
Citation No. 2491965; 12/12/84

Docket No. LAKE 85-35-R
Citation No. 2491973; 12/18/84

Elkhart Mine

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. LAKE 85-53
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 11-02664-03547

v. Docket No. LAKE 85-68
A.C. No. 11-02664-03551
TURRIS COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT
Docket No. LAKE 85-70
A.C. No. 11-02664-03552

Elkhart Mine

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT

On January 13, 1986, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss these proceedings and approve a settlement reached between the parties.

Four alleged violations are involved. The first is included in Order 2323276 which charges a violation of 30 C.F.R. 75.200 because of an alleged inadequately supported roof. The violation was originally assessed at $900, and the parties propose to settle for $750. The motion states that the violation resulted from a high degree of negligence and that "if a roof fall would have occurred two miners could have been killed." The order indicates that the occurrence ~78 of the event against which the cited standard is directed was highly likely. The motion states that the proposed assessment is reduced because of an amendment to the order which presumably (this is not clear) reduces the area of unsupported roof. In my judgment this is not a sufficient reason for the proposed reduction.

The two other roof control violations contained in Docket No. LAKE 85Ä70, the parties propose to settle for the amount originally assessed.

Order 2491973 (issued under section 104(d)(2)) was originally assessed at $850. It charged a violation of 30 C.F.R. 75.503 because of a permissibility violation on a batter powered scoop. The motion states that the violation resulted from a high degree of negligence and that one miner could have been killed from operating equipment not in permissible condition. The motion further states that Petitioner has agreed to amend the citation from a 104(d)(2) order to a 104(a) citation and that Respondent "did not intentionally operate its machine in violation of the Act ..." In my judgment, the motion does not show justification for the reduction in the penalty, based on the criteria in section 110(i) of the Act.

Therefore, the motion to dismiss and approve settlement is DENIED. The matter will be rescheduled for hearing by a subsequent notice.

James A. Broderick
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