Secretary of Labor v. R & K Coal Company, Inc. (Commission decision, January 26, 2010)

Secretary of Labor v. R & K Coal Company, Inc. (FMSHRC PENN 2008-290): Default remanded for answer inquiry

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
PENN 2008-290
Decided
January 26, 2010
Outcome
Remanded
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-08

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2010, and it may have been appealed since. Ezel checks how it stands today and answers your situation, with citations.

Currency note: this decision dates from 2010
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.
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 agency's own release.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

A Chief Administrative Law Judge entered a default against R & K Coal after the company did not respond to a show-cause order. Six days later, R & K asked the Commission to set the default aside and supplied an April 2009 letter that appeared to be its answer, along with a fax cover sheet sent to the Solicitor's Office. The Commission treated the request as a timely petition for discretionary review and granted review. Because the record did not show whether the answer had been timely submitted or why the Commission had not received it, the Commission remanded the case. The Chief Judge was directed to decide whether relief from default was warranted and conduct further proceedings as appropriate.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.69(b) and 2700.70(a)
  • Outcome: Review was granted, and the case was remanded for a determination whether the default should be set aside.
  • Key point: Evidence that an operator may have timely submitted an answer requires factual inquiry before a default judgment is allowed to stand.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

601 NEW JERSEY AVENUE, NW

SUITE 9500

WASHINGTON, DC 20001

January 26, 2010

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

R & K COAL COMPANY, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. PENN 2008-290

A.C. No. 36-08341-143134

BEFORE: Jordan, Chairman; Duffy, Young, and Cohen, Commissioners

DIRECTION FOR REVIEW AND ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2006) (“Mine Act”). On April 22, 2009, Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert Lesnick issued to R & K Coal Company, Inc. (“R & K”) an Order to Show Cause for failure to answer the Secretary of Labor’s petition for assessment of penalty. On January 5, 2010, Chief Judge Lesnick issued an Order of Default dismissing this civil penalty proceeding for failure to respond to the show cause order.

On January 11, 2010, the Commission received from R & K a request to set aside the default order. Attached to its request is a letter from Independent Miners and Associates (“IMA”) addressed to the Chief Judge dated April 24, 2009, that appears to be R & K’s answer to the Secretary’s petition. In addition, a fax cover sheet from IMA to the Regional Solicitor’s Office dated April 24, 2009, is attached to the request.

The judge’s jurisdiction in this matter terminated when his decision was issued on January 5, 2010. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.69(b). 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); 29 C.F.R. § 2700.70(a). We deem R & K’s request to constitute a timely filed petition for discretionary review, which we grant. See, e.g., Middle States Res., Inc., 10 FMSHRC 1130 (Sept. 1988).

R & K allegedly submitted an answer in April 2009 to the Secretary’s petition for assessment of penalty. However, the Commission apparently did not receive R & K’s answer at that time. Accordingly, the judge entered a default judgment against R & K. Based on the present record, we are unable to determine whether R & K timely submitted its answer, and if so, why it apparently was not received.

Having reviewed R & K’s request, in the interest of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge, who shall determine whether relief from default is warranted, and for further proceedings as appropriate pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.

______

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

______

Michael F. Duffy, Commissioner

______

Michael G. Young, Commissioner    

______

Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Commissioner

Distribution:

Jerry W. Lucas, Owner

R & K Coal Co.

642 Suedburg Rd.

Pine Grove, PA 17963

Cindy Rothermel

Independent Miners Assoc.

44 North Crescent, St.

Tremon, PA 17981

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Robin Rosenbluth, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Dept. of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

Myra James, Chief

Office of Civil Penalty Compliance

MSHA

U.S. Dept. of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 25th Floor

Arlington, VA 22209-3939

Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Suite 9500

Washington, D.C. 20001-2021

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