Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Bear Coal Company, Inc. (ALJ decision, November 18, 1985)
Secretary of Labor (MSHA) v. Bear Coal Company, Inc. (FMSHRC WEST 85-51): Settlement vacates a duplicate citation
Apply this to your situation
This order from 1985 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.
Plain-English summary
MSHA and Bear Coal Company settled two penalty cases involving the Bear No. 3 Mine after a hearing on the merits. They agreed that two citations arose from the same facts and that one was duplicative. Judge John A. Carlson approved the agreement, vacated Citation No. 2336348, and reduced the proposed penalties for the other three citations. Bear Coal was ordered to pay $1,175 within 40 days. The decision does not identify the underlying safety standards.
Decision snapshot
- Cited standards: None identified in this settlement decision.
- Outcome: Settlement approved; one duplicate citation vacated and three penalties reduced to a total of $1,175.
- Key point: The parties resolved the cases by eliminating a duplicate citation and reducing the remaining penalties.
Full text (FMSHRC public release)
CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. BEAR COAL
DDATE:
19851118
TTEXT:
~1906
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges
SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. WEST 85-51
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 05-03787-03530
v. Docket No. WEST 85-52
A.C. No. 05-03787-03531
BEAR COAL COMPANY, INC.,
RESPONDENT
Bear No. 3 Mine
DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT
Appearances: Robert J. Lesnick, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor, Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner;
Stephen B. Shapiro, Esq., Morrato, Bieging, Burrus & Colantuno, Denver, Colorado, for Respondent.
Before: Judge Carlson
These consolidated civil penalty cases were fully heard upon the merits on August 2, 1984, in Denver, Colorado. Before the briefs were due the parties asked for more time in order to work out a possible settlement.
The parties have now submitted a settlement agreement which, if approved, would resolve all pending issues.
Specifically, the parties agree that citation number 2336348 and citation number 2336329 arose out of the same factual situation and were therefore improperly duplicative. They therefore propose that citation number 2336348 be vacated.
They also agree that the penalty assessments for the remaining citations should be modified as follows:
Citation No. Original Proposed Penalty Modified Penalty
2336329 $ 600.00 $ 125.00
2336350 750.00 550.00
2336510 650.00 500.00
Having heard all of the evidence in this case and considered the representations made in the settlement agreement, I am convinced that the terms of the agreement are reasonable and appropriate.
~1907
Accordingly, the settlement agreement is ORDERED approved in its entirety. Citation no. 2336348 is ORDERED vacated, and respondent Bear Coal Company is ORDERED to pay a total civil penalty of $1,175.00 for the remaining three citations within 40 days of the date of this decision.
John A. Carlson
Administrative Law Judge
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