Lanier Construction Company (Commission decision, December 12, 2007)

Plain-English summary

Lanier Construction intended to contest five citations issued in July 2007. Its office manager mistakenly paid the proposed penalties instead, and the company discovered the error while checking a citation involved in a section 110(c) special investigation. The Secretary did not oppose reopening. The Commission remanded for the Chief Administrative Law Judge to decide whether the payment mistake established good cause and whether relief from the final order should be granted.

Decision snapshot

• Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.1(b); 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(a) and 820(c)
• Outcome: The five paid assessments were remanded for a good-cause and reopening determination.
• Key point: Accidental payment of penalties intended for contest may support reopening, but good cause must be established before the final order is disturbed.

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

December 12, 2007

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

LANIER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. SE 2008-93-M
A.C. No. 38-00535-128168

BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan and Young, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION:

This matter arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2000) (“Mine Act”). On November 12, 2007, the Commission received from

Lanier Construction Company (“Lanier”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment that had become a final order of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

Under section 105(a) of the Mine Act, an operator who wishes to contest a proposed penalty must notify the Secretary of Labor no later than 30 days after receiving the proposed penalty assessment. If the operator fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission. 30 U.S.C. § 815(a).

On October 3, 2007, the Department of Labor’s Mine Safety and Health Administration (“MSHA”) issued proposed penalty assessments to Lanier covering five citations that were issued in July. In its motion, Lanier states that its office manager mistakenly paid the proposed penalties for the five citations that it had intended to contest. Lanier further asserts that, on November 9, it learned of the mistake when it investigated the status of one of the citations that was the subject of a special investigation pursuant to section 110(c) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C.
§ 820(c). In response, the Secretary states that she does not oppose Lanier’s request to reopen the proposed penalty assessment proceeding.

We have held that in appropriate circumstances, we possess jurisdiction to reopen uncontested assessments that have become final Commission orders under section 105(a). Jim Walter Res., Inc., 15 FMSHRC 782, 786-89 (May 1993) (“JWR”). In evaluating requests to reopen final section 105(a) orders, the Commission has found guidance in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure under which, for example, a party could be entitled to relief from a final order of the Commission on the basis of inadvertence or mistake. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 2700.1(b) (“the Commission and its Judges shall be guided so far as practicable by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”); JWR, 15 FMSHRC at 787. We have also observed that default is a harsh remedy and that, if the defaulting party can make a showing of good cause for a failure to timely respond, the case may be reopened and appropriate proceedings on the merits permitted. See Coal Prep. Servs., Inc., 17 FMSHRC 1529, 1530 (Sept. 1995).

Having reviewed Lanier’s request, in the interests of justice, we remand this matter to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for a determination of whether good cause exists for Lanier’s failure to timely contest the penalty proposals and whether relief from the final order should be granted. If it is determined that such relief is appropriate, this case shall proceed pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.

______

Michael F. Duffy, Chairman

______

Mary Lu Jordan, 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

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., Room 2220

Arlington, VA 22209-2296

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