Secretary of Labor v. David Vukmanic, formerly employed by Consolidation Coal Company (Commission decision, May 18, 2015)

Secretary of Labor v. David Vukmanic (FMSHRC WEVA 2014-1998): Wrong-address assessment never became final

Decision type
Commission decision
Docket
WEVA 2014-1998
Decided
May 18, 2015
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Citable Commission precedent
Checked against source
2026-08-02

Apply this precedent to your situation

This is citable Commission precedent from 2015, 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 2015
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 proposed an individual penalty against former Consolidation Coal employee David Vukmanic under section 110(c) of the Mine Act. Vukmanic asked to reopen after learning that MSHA had mailed the assessment to the wrong address. The Secretary confirmed the addressing error and reported that Vukmanic timely contested the assessment after it was re-mailed correctly. The Commission held that the assessment never became a final order because Vukmanic had not received it. It denied the reopening motion as moot and remanded the active case for further proceedings.

Decision snapshot

  • Governing provisions: 30 U.S.C. § 820(c); 29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.26 and 2700.27
  • Outcome: The reopening motion was denied as moot, and the case was remanded because the assessment had never become final.
  • Key point: A proposed individual penalty sent to the wrong address does not become a final order when the recipient timely contests it after proper delivery.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND
HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW, SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1710

SECRETARY
OF LABOR,                             :                                     

MINE
SAFETY AND HEALTH                    :                                                         

ADMINISTRATION
(MSHA)                       :       

:

:        Docket No. WEVA 2014-1998

v.                                              
 :        A.C. No. 46-01433-336288
A   

:                   

DAVID
VUKMANIC, formerly                      :

employed
by CONSOLIDATION                   :

COAL
COMPANY                                         :                                   

BEFORE:
Jordan, Chairman; Young, Nakamura, and Althen, Commissioners[1]

ORDER

BY THE
COMMISSION:

This matter
arises under the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C.    § 801 et seq. (2012) (“Mine Act”). On August 4, 2014, the Commission received from David Vukmanic (“Vukmanic”) a motion seeking to reopen a penalty assessment under section 110(c) of the Mine Act, 30 U.S.C. § 820(c), that had appeared to become a final order of the Commission.

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.

Vukmanic asserts
that it never received the proposed penalty assessment because the Secretary mailed it to the wrong address. The Secretary confirms this, and states that once MSHA re-mailed the proposed assessment to the correct address, it was timely contested by Vukmanic.

Having reviewed Vukmanic’s request and the Secretary’s response, we conclude that the proposed penalty assessment did not become a final order of the Commission because the operator never received the proposed assessment. This obviates any need to invoke Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to consider reopening a final order.

Accordingly,
the operator’s motion to reopen is moot, and this case is remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings pursuant to the Mine Act and the Commission’s Procedural Rules, 29 C.F.R. Part 2700.

/s/ Mary Lu
Jordan

Mary Lu Jordan, Chairman

/s/ Michael G.
Young

Michael G. Young,
Commissioner

/s/ Patrick K.
Nakamura

Patrick K.
Nakamura, Commissioner

/s/ William I.
Althen

William I.
Althen, Commissioner

[1] Commissioner
Cohen has elected not to participate in this matter.

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