Ezel / Agency Decisions / LAKE 85-95

Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Denzil Proctor (ALJ decision, December 20, 1985)

Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Denzil Proctor (FMSHRC LAKE 85-95): Individual penalty case dismissed

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
LAKE 85-95
Decided
December 20, 1985
Presiding judge
James A. Broderick
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-20
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1985 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.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1985
The MSHA standards may have been amended, penalty amounts have been adjusted, and later Commission or court decisions may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current compliance advice. Verify the current standard before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or penalty mentioned here.
Final ALJ decision, not Commission precedent
This dismissal became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index. It binds the parties but 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

MSHA sought an individual civil penalty against Denzil Proctor as an agent of the operator of the Raccoon No. 3 Mine. The petition alleged that he knowingly authorized, ordered, or carried out a safety violation charged against the operator. After discovery and discussions with counsel, the Secretary concluded that Proctor's actions appeared to be an error in judgment rather than a knowing violation and moved to withdraw the petition. Proctor did not oppose the motion. Judge James A. Broderick granted withdrawal and dismissed the proceeding without assessing a penalty. The order does not identify the underlying safety standard by number.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard: Not identified in this order.
  • Outcome: Secretary's penalty petition withdrawn and case dismissed; no individual penalty assessed.
  • Key point: The Secretary withdrew the knowing violation allegation after reviewing mitigating facts.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. DENZIL PROCTOR
DDATE:
19851220
TTEXT:
~2240
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. LAKE 85-95
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 33-02308-03620 A

v. Raccoon No. 3 Mine

DENZIL PROCTOR,
RESPONDENT

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before: Judge Broderick

On December 9, 1985, Petitioner moved to withdraw its Petition for a Civil Penalty, and for dismissal of this proceeding.

Respondent is charged in this proceeding as an agent of the corporate mine operator, with knowingly authorizing, ordering, or carrying out the violation charged against the operator. The Motion states that further review of the facts developed during discovery proceedings and discussions between counsel persuaded Petitioner that there are mitigating circumstances which show that Respondent's actions were more in the nature of an error in judgment than a knowing violation of the safety standard alleged. Respondent does not oppose the motion.

Based on the representations in the motion, which I accept, the motion is GRANTED, and this proceeding is DISMISSED.

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