Joseph W. Herman v. Imco Services (Commission decision, January 27, 1983)

Joseph W. Herman v. Imco Services (FMSHRC WEST 81-109-DM): Reconsideration of untimely complaint dismissal denied

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
WEST 81-109-DM
Decided
January 27, 1983
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-21

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 order denied reconsideration of the Commission's earlier dismissal ruling. It left that ruling in place and did not decide the discrimination allegations on their merits. 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

The Commission had affirmed dismissal of Joseph Herman's discrimination complaint as untimely in December 1982. Herman then submitted a document that the Commission treated as a request to reconsider that decision. The Commission found no merit in the request and denied it. It also said that a requested court appeal was for Herman to pursue under the applicable appellate procedures, rather than an action the Commission could take for him.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 815(c), discrimination complaints; 29 C.F.R. § 2700.75, reconsideration.
  • Outcome: Reconsideration denied; earlier dismissal left in place.
  • Key point: The Commission found no basis to reopen its untimeliness ruling and did not itself initiate court review.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
JOSEPH HERMAN V. IMCO SERVICES
DDATE:
19830127
TTEXT:
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY & HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. January 27, 1983 JOSEPH W. HERMAN

v. Docket No. WEST 81-109-DM

IMCO SERVICES

ORDER
On December 15, 1982, the Commission issued its decision in this case affirming the administrative law judge's dismissal of Joseph W. Herman's discrimination complaint as untimely filed under section 105(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.
$ 815(c). On January 18, 1983, we received a document filed by Mr. Herman. We construe the document to be a request for reconsideration of the Commission's decision. 29 C.F.R. $ 2700.75. We find no merit in the request and, accordingly, it is denied. We note Mr. Herman's request for "an appeal ... to the next judicial court available to me." We can take no action regarding this request. If complainant desires to appeal the Commission's decision to a United States Court of Appeals, the appropriate procedures set forth in section 106(a)(1) of the Act (30 U.S.C.
$ 816(a)(1)) and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure must be followed by him.
~2
Distribution
Joseph W. Herman
3525 San Mateo Ave.
Reno, Nevada 89509
Richard 0. Kwapil, Jr., Esq.
Woodburn, Wedge, Blakey and Jeppson
First Interstate Bank Bldg., 16th Fl.
One East First St.
Reno, Nevada 89509
Administrative Law Judge John Morris
Fed. Mine Safety & Health Rev. Commission 333 West Colfax Avenue, 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