Hosea O. Weaver & Sons, Inc. (Commission decision, August 29, 2006)

Hosea O. Weaver & Sons, Inc. (FMSHRC SE 2005-301-M, et al.): Premature interlocutory petition dismissed

Decision type
Commission decision
Dockets
SE 2005-301-M, SE 2006-131-M, SE 2006-167-M
Decided
August 29, 2006
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-09

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2006, 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 2006
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

Hosea O. Weaver & Sons sought Commission review of an ALJ ruling that MSHA had jurisdiction over the disputed activities. The ruling was not a final decision, and Weaver also asked the judge to certify the jurisdiction question for interlocutory review. Weaver filed its Commission petition before the judge ruled on that certification request. Because the interlocutory petition was premature under Commission Rule 76, the Commission granted the Secretary's motion to dismiss it.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.70(a) and 2700.76(a)(1); 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2)(A)(i)
  • Outcome: Weaver's petition for review was dismissed as premature.
  • Key point: A party seeking interlocutory review must wait for the judge to certify the ruling or deny certification before petitioning the Commission.

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, D.C. 20001

August 29, 2006

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

HOSEA O. WEAVER & SONS, INC.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket Nos. SE 2005-301-M

SE 2006-131-M

SE 2006-167-M

ORDER

On August 11, 2006, the Commission received from Hosea O. Weaver & Sons, Inc. (“Weaver”) a Petition for Discretionary Review, or in the Alternative, Petition for Interlocutory Review, in these consolidated proceedings. This petition sought review of Commission Administrative Law Judge David F. Barbour’s July 13, 2006 order denying Weaver’s motion for summary decision and granting the Secretary of Labor’s motion for summary decision on the issue of whether the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) had jurisdiction over the activities in question. On August 15, 2006, the Secretary of Labor filed a response opposing Weaver’s petition and moving that it be dismissed.

Also on August 11, 2006, Weaver filed with Judge Barbour a motion for certification of his interlocutory ruling to the Commission, pursuant to Commission Rule 76(a)(1)(i). The judge denied Weaver’s motion on August 17, 2006.

Under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. (2004), and the Commission’s procedural rules, relief from a judge’s final decision may be sought by filing a petition for review within 30 days of its issuance. 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(2)(A)(i); 20 C.F.R.
§ 2700.70(a). Here, however, the judge’s order was an interlocutory ruling on motions filed by the parties, not a final disposition of the proceedings. Thus, we cannot consider Weaver’s petition under Commission Procedural Rule 70(a).

The Commission’s rule on interlocutory review sets forth the prerequisites for such review, stating that the Commission may grant interlocutory review only after a judge “has certified . . . that his interlocutory ruling involves a controlling question of law and that in his opinion immediate review will materially advance the final disposition of the proceeding,” or “denied a party’s motion for [such] certification . . . and the party files with the Commission a petition for interlocutory review within 30 days of the Judge’s denial of such motion.” 29 C.F.R.
§ 2700.76(a)(1). Here, Weaver filed its petition for interlocutory review prematurely because the judge had not yet ruled on the company’s pending motion for certification.

Accordingly, we grant the Secretary’s August 15 motion to dismiss.


Michael F. Duffy, Chairman


Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner


Stanley C. Suboleski, Commissioner


Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Distribution

Adele L. Abrams, Esq

Law Office of Adele L. Abrams, P.C

4740 Corridor Place, Suite D

Beltsville, MD 20705

Jack Powasnik, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor West

Arlington, VA 22209-2247

Administrative Law Judge David F. Barbour

Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

Office of Administrative Law Judges

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