Ezel / Agency Decisions / WEST 79-49-DM

William A. Haro v. Magma Copper Company (Commission decision, May 5, 1983)

William A. Haro v. Magma Copper Company (FMSHRC WEST 79-49-DM and WEST 80-116-DM): Interlocutory review accepted and case returned to judge

Decision type
Commission decision
Dockets
WEST 79-49-DM, WEST 80-116-DM
Decided
May 5, 1983
Outcome
Remanded
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-21
Cited standards
29 C.F.R. § 2700.74(a)
Official source
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)
PDF
View Official PDF

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 1983, 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 1983
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 interlocutory order accepted certified review and returned the pending case to the judge for findings under an earlier remand. It did not finally dispose of the proceeding under 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1). 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

In William Haro's case against Magma Copper Company, the judge certified an issue for interlocutory review. The Commission accepted that certification under its procedural rule. It reiterated that its earlier remand required the judge to make findings on the existing record about the merits of the operator's defense. The Commission returned the case to the judge without resolving that defense in this order.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited rule: 29 C.F.R. § 2700.74(a), interlocutory review.
  • Outcome: Interlocutory review accepted; case returned to the judge for findings on the existing record.
  • Key point: The judge still had to make findings on the operator's defense as directed by the prior remand.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
WILLIAM HARO V. MAGMA COPPER
DDATE:
19830505
TTEXT:
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. May 5, 1983 WILLIAM A. HARO

v. Docket Nos. WEST 79-49-DM
WEST 80-116-DM
MAGMA COPPER COMPANY

ORDER
The certification of interlocutory review filed by the judge on April 6, 1983 is accepted. 29 C.F.R. $ 2700.74(a) The remand order of the Commission issued on November 20, 1982 directed the judge to make findings on the record presently before him as to the merits of the operator's defense. Accordingly, the case is returned to the judge. A. E. Lawson, Commissioner L. Clair Nelson, Commissioner
~806
Distribution
N. Douglas Grimwood
Twitty, Sievwright & Mills
1700 TowneHouse Tower
100 West Clarendon
Phoenix, Arizona 85013
Paul F. Tosca, Jr.
Corcoran, Magness & Tosca
608 Pioneer Plaza
100 North Stone
Tucson, Arizona 85701
Administrative Law Judge John Morris
FMSHRC
333 West Colfax Ave., Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80204

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