Ezel / Agency Decisions / SE 84-23

Jim Walter Resources, Inc. (ALJ decision, July 9, 1985)

Jim Walter Resources, Inc. (FMSHRC SE 84-23): Safeguard settlement approved

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
SE 84-23
Decided
July 9, 1985
Presiding judge
Paul Merlin
Outcome
Settled
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 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

After a Commission remand, the judge had asked Jim Walter Resources and the Secretary of Labor to address whether admitted conditions violated a mine safety safeguard. The parties then agreed to settle for the originally assessed $119. The judge found that the conditions violated the safeguard, approved the settlement, and ordered the company to pay $119 within 30 days. The order does not identify the safeguard by number or describe the underlying conditions.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard: The order refers to a safeguard but gives no citation number or regulatory section.
  • Outcome: Settlement approved and $119 ordered paid.
  • Key point: The judge resolved the remanded violation question by approving the parties' $119 settlement.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) V. JIM WALTER RESOURCES INC. DDATE: 19850709 TTEXT:
~1055
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. SE 84-23
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 01-00758-03569

v. No. 3 Mine

JIM WALTER RESOURCES, INC.,
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Merlin

This case is before me pursuant to the Commission's Order of Remand dated April 29, 1985 which directed further proceedings and findings as to whether the conditions cited constituted a violation of the subject safeguard.

On May 6, 1985, I ordered the parties to submit briefs on or before June 8, 1985 with respect to whether or not the admitted conditions constituted a violation. The operator now advises that it and the Solicitor have agreed to a settlement in the amount of $119 which is the originally assessed amount. Accordingly, I find the conditions constituted a violation and APPROVE the recommended settlement.

The operator is ordered to pay $119 within 30 days from the date of this decision.

Paul Merlin
Chief 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