Paul J. Bennett, Gloria W. Holmes, and Steven K. Hanks, employed by Bennett Mineral Company (Commission decision, August 30, 2006)

Paul J. Bennett, Gloria W. Holmes, and Steven K. Hanks (FMSHRC VA 2006-33-M, et al.): Reopening requests dismissed as moot

Decision type
Commission decision
Dockets
VA 2006-33-M, VA 2006-34-M, VA 2006-35-M
Decided
August 30, 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

MSHA assessed individual penalties against three Bennett Mineral Company employees, and the assessments became final after no timely contests were recorded. The employees asked the Commission to reopen the cases, explaining that they believed their appeals had been filed and that dismissal of the related operator case had resolved all related matters. The Secretary responded that she would not prosecute the individual cases further. The Commission treated the Secretary's position as terminating the underlying citations, denied the reopening motions as moot, and dismissed the proceedings.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.26 and 2700.27; 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(a) and 820(c)
  • Outcome: The motions to reopen were denied as moot, and all three proceedings were dismissed.
  • Key point: A reopening request becomes moot when the Secretary has effectively terminated the underlying enforcement matters.

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

August 30, 2006

SECRETARY OF LABOR,

MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH

ADMINISTRATION (MSHA)

v.

PAUL J. BENNETT,

GLORIA W. HOLMES, and

STEVEN K. HANKS, employed by

BENNETT MINERAL COMPANY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Docket No. VA 2006-33-M
A.C. No. 44-06600-26884 A

Docket No. VA 2006-34-M
A.C. No. 44-06600-26885 A

Docket No. VA 2006-35-M
A.C. No. 44-06600-26886 A

BEFORE: Duffy, Chairman; Jordan, Suboleski, and Young, Commissioners

ORDER

BY THE COMMISSION: 

These matters arise under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
§ 801 et seq. (2000) ("Mine Act"). On July 13, 2006, the Commission received a letter from Bennett Mineral Company sent on behalf of Paul J. Bennett, Jr., Gloria W. Holmes, and Steven K. Hanks, all employees of the company, requesting that the Commission reopen penalty assessments against the employees under section 110(c) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 820(c), that had become final orders of the Commission pursuant to section 105(a) of the Act, 30 U.S.C.
§ 815(a).

Under the Commission's Procedural Rules, an individual charged under section 110(c) has 30 days following receipt of the proposed penalty assessment within which to notify the Secretary of Labor that he or she wishes to contest the penalty. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.26. If the individual fails to notify the Secretary, the proposed penalty assessment is deemed a final order of the Commission. 29 C.F.R. § 2700.27.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA") sent proposed penalty assessments to the respondents in May 2004.2 Although the respondents contend that they filed appeals in June 2004 (Letter from Donna M. Rutkowski, HR/Safety Administrator, dated July 12, 2006), these penalties became final orders in June 2004. See letters from MSHA to respondents dated June 14, 2006. However, the related penalty proceeding against the operator was dismissed pursuant to an unpublished order issued by Chief Administrative Law Judge Robert J. Lesnick on December 16, 2004. Order of Dismissal, Bennett Mineral Co., Docket No. VA 2004-46-M. The respondents' letter states that until they received delinquency notices dated mid-June 2006, they believed that all related cases had also been dismissed.

On August 2, 2006, the Secretary filed a response to the employees' request for relief stating that "[a]fter reviewing the circumstances pertaining to the case[s], the Secretary states that she will not prosecute the case[s] further." S. Resp. at 1.

Based on the Secretary's response, it appears that she has in effect terminated the citations against Bennett, Holmes, and Hanks, and we therefore find their motions to reopen moot. See Black Gold Trucking Co., 23 FMSHRC 797 (Aug. 2001).

Accordingly, the motions to reopen are denied, and these proceedings are dismissed.


Michael F. Duffy, Chairman

______

Mary Lu Jordan, Commissioner

______

Stanley C. Suboleski, Commissioner

______

Michael G. Young, Commissioner

Distribution

Donna M. Rutkowski, HR, Safety Administrator

Bennett Mineral Company

P.O. Box 28

Walkerton, VA 23177

W. Christian Schumann, Esq.

Office of the Solicitor

U.S. Department of Labor

1100 Wilson Blvd., 22nd Floor

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

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