Ezel / Agency Decisions / LAKE 87-22-DM

Puskarich Limestone Company (ALJ decision, March 18, 1987)

Puskarich Limestone Company (FMSHRC LAKE 87-22-DM, MD 86-10): Discrimination proceeding dismissed after settlement

Decision type
ALJ decision
Dockets
LAKE 87-22-DM, MD 86-10
Decided
March 18, 1987
Presiding judge
William Fauver
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-22
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1987 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 1987
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 approving a settlement, not Commission precedent
This decision 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

Ricky Vernon Hein and Puskarich Limestone Company asked the judge to approve a settlement and dismiss the discrimination proceeding. Judge William Fauver granted the motion for good cause shown. The parties were ordered to comply with the settlement agreement filed on March 9, 1987, and confirmed by counsel for the complainant's March 5 letter. The proceeding was dismissed. The release does not state the settlement terms, any cited mine standard, or a penalty amount.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: None stated in the decision.
  • Outcome: The settlement was approved and the discrimination proceeding was dismissed. No penalty amount is stated.
  • Key point: The judge approved the parties' settlement and ended the proceeding.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
RICKY HEIN V. PUSKARICH LIMESTONE
DDATE:
19870318
TTEXT:

Page 2

~610

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

RICKY VERNON HEIN,
DISCRIMINATION PROCEEDING
COMPLAINANT
Docket No. LAKE 87-22-DM v.
MD 86-10
PUSKARICH LIMESTONE COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Fauver

The parties have moved for approval of a settlement agreement and an order dismissing this proceeding.

FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, the motion is GRANTED.

ORDER

WHEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The parties will fully comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement filed herein on March 9, 1987, and confirmed by letter of March 5, 1987, from counsel for Complainant.

2. Based upon the foregoing, this proceeding is DISMISSED.

William Fauver
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