T. J. McKnight, Inc. (ALJ decision, December 20, 1994)

T. J. McKnight, Inc. (FMSHRC SE 94-262-M, SE 94-51-RM, and SE 94-52-RM): Settlement approved for $500

Decision type
ALJ decision
Dockets
SE 94-262-M, SE 94-51-RM, SE 94-52-RM
Decided
December 20, 1994
Presiding judge
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-13

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1994 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 1994
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

T. J. McKnight contested two significant-and-substantial citations at the Clarks Mine and faced a proposed $7,000 penalty. The parties jointly moved to approve a settlement after the hearing. Judge Roy J. Maurer vacated one citation because the evidence no longer supported the violation, reduced the other citation's proposed penalty from $2,000 to $500, and changed the negligence finding from low to none. The settlement was approved, and the operator was ordered to pay $500 within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. § 56.14100(b) and 30 C.F.R. § 56.7005
  • Outcome: One citation was vacated, the other penalty was reduced to $500, and the settlement was approved.
  • Key point: The Judge approved a settlement that vacated an unsupported citation and reduced the remaining penalty after the Secretary reassessed the evidence.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
T J McKNIGHT V. SOL (MSHA)
DDATE:
19941220
TTEXT:


Page 2

~2475
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
2 SKYLINE, 10th FLOOR
5203 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA 22041

T. J. McKNIGHT, INC.,
: CONTEST PROCEEDINGS
Contestant :
v. : Docket No. SE 94-51-RM
: Citation No. 4094591;
SECRETARY OF LABOR, : 7/29/93
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. SE 94-52-RM Respondent : Citation No. 4094593;
: 7/29/94
:
: Clarks Mine
:
: Mine ID 31-02009-QFX
:
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
: CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH :
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), : Docket No. SE 94-262-M Petitioner : A. C. No. 31-02009-05501 QFX
v. :
: Clarks Mine
T. J. McKNIGHT, INC.,
:
Respondent :

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Appearances: Leslie John Rodriguez, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U. S. Department of Labor,
Atlanta, Georgia, for the Secretary;
Michael C. Lord, Esq., Maupin, Taylor, Ellis & Adams, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Contestant/Respondent.

Before: Judge Maurer

These consolidated proceedings concern two Notices of Contest filed by T. J. McKnight, Inc., pursuant to section 105(d) of the Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, challenging the legality of two section 104(a) "S&S" citations alleging violations of the mandatory safety standards found at 30 C.F.R. 56.14100(b) and 56.7005, respectively. The civil penalty ca concerns a proposed civil penalty assessment of $7000, for the alleged violations. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Raleigh, North Carolina, on September 15-16, 1994, wherein the parties appeared and presented evidence to support their


Page 3

~2476
respective positions. At the conclusion of the hearing, I scheduled November 15, 1994, as the filing date for the simultaneous submission of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. At the request of the Secretary, that filing date subsequently was extended to December 1, 1994.

However, in lieu of filing the requested post-hearing submissions, on December 9, 1994, the parties, pursuant to Commission Rule 31, 29 C.F.R. 2700.31, filed a joint motion to approve settlement of all matters in issue in these proceedings. The Secretary moves to vacate Citation No. 4094593, contested in Docket No. SE 94-52-RM, and to dismiss so much of the Petition for Assessment of Civil Penalty as is based thereon, on the ground that the evidence now available does not sustain the violation. The Secretary also proposes to reduce the proposed assessment for Citation No. 4094591 from $2000 to $500, and to reclassify the negligence factor from "low" to "no" negligence, on the grounds that the Secretary now feels the company did exercise due diligence.

I have considered the representations and documentation submitted in these cases, and I conclude that the proffered settlement is appropriate under the criteria set forth in section 110(i) of the Act.

WHEREFORE, the motion for approval of settlement is GRANTED, and it is ORDERED that respondent pay a penalty of $500 within 30 days of this decision.

Roy J. Maurer
Administrative Law Judge

Distribution:

Michael C. Lord, Esq., Maupin, Taylor, Ellis & Adams, P.A., 3200 Beechleaf Court, P. O. Drawer 19764, Raleigh, NC 27619

Leslie John Rodriguez, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U. S. Department of Labor, 1371 Peachtree Street, NE, Room 339, Atlanta, GA 30367 dcp

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