Ezel / Agency Decisions / se-90-1-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket SE 90-1 Decided May 21, 1990 Procedural Judge George A. Koutras Transcribed from scan

Faith Coal Company

Faith Coal Company (FMSHRC SE 90-1): Continuance request denied

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1990 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 1990
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.
Interlocutory ALJ order, not Commission precedent
This order denied a request to continue the scheduled hearing. It did not dispose of the civil penalty proceeding or become a final decision under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). It 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.
Transcribed from a scanned original: FMSHRC released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

The Secretary sought a $54 civil penalty against Faith Coal Company for allegedly failing to submit valid respirable dust samples. The Secretary's counsel asked to move a June 7, 1990 hearing because of depositions in another matter. Judge George A. Koutras found that the issues were not complex, another attorney could handle the trial, and the depositions could be rescheduled. He denied the continuance request, so the hearing remained scheduled.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standard(s): The order does not identify a specific Mine Act standard.
  • Outcome: The request to continue the June 7, 1990 hearing was denied.
  • Key point: A scheduling conflict did not justify delaying a hearing when the matter was straightforward and alternatives were available.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

1159
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (F.M.S.H.R.C.)
Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. SE 90-1
PETITIONER A.C. No. 40-02701-03532

      v.                           Goforth Mine

FAITH COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

     ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OF HEARING

  On May 18, 1990, the petitioner's counsel called my office

and left a message requesting a continuance of the hearing
scheduled in this matter in Chattanooga, Tennessee on June 7,
1990. The stated reason for the request is that counsel has to be
available in another matter for depositions on June 7, 1990, and
he seeks a rescheduling of the hearing to later in June or July,
1990.

 The notice of hearing in this matter was mailed to the

parties on March 30, 1990, and I assume that the referenced
depositions were scheduled after that date. In any event, in this
case, the petitioner is seeking a $54 civil penalty assessment
for the alleged failure by the respondent to submit certain valid
respirable dust samples. The respondent contends that the samples
were taken and timely mailed. The issues do not appear to be
complex, and I see no reason why the Regional Solicitor cannot
assign this case to another attorney for trial. Further, I see no
reason why counsel of record in this case cannot reschedule the
depositions for another time.

 The presiding judge's trial docket is full through the month

of August, 1990, and taking into account other case assignments,
this case would not be tried until the fall if it were to be
continued. I simply cannot conclude that such a delay is
warranted.

 In view of the foregoing, the request for a continuance IS

DENIED, and the hearing will proceed as scheduled.

                                George A. Koutras
                                Administrative Law Judge

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1990, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.