Secretary of Labor v. Ruttman Corporation (ALJ decision, May 30, 1985)

Secretary of Labor v. Ruttman Corporation (FMSHRC WEVA 84-300): $84 silo hazard settlement approved

Decision type
ALJ decision
Docket
WEVA 84-300
Decided
May 30, 1985
Presiding judge
Outcome
Settled
Precedential status
Final order, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-20

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.

Currency note: this decision dates from 1985
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.
Final ALJ decision, not Commission precedent
This decision became final under the 40-day rule in 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) because no later Commission review appears in the official index for this docket. It binds the parties but is not Commission precedent. 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 cited Ruttman Corporation for tripping hazards and unguarded floor openings on top of a silo at its Pine Creek No. 12 preparation plant. The openings presented an approximately 30-foot fall hazard. Each citation carried a $42 assessment, and the parties proposed settlement at those original amounts. Chief Administrative Law Judge Paul Merlin accepted the proposal and ordered the operator to pay $84 within 30 days.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: 30 C.F.R. §§ 77.208(a) and 77.200, concerning the silo hazards described in the order.
  • Outcome: Both citations settled for their original $42 assessments, totaling $84.
  • Key point: The judge approved full payment for the tripping hazards and unguarded silo openings.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
SOL (MSHA) v. RUTTMAN CORPORATION
DDATE:
19850530
TTEXT:
~678
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges

SECRETARY OF LABOR,
CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
Docket No. WEVA 84-300
PETITIONER
A.C. No. 46-06197-03501 A41

v. Pine Creek No. 12 Prep.
Plant
RUTTMAN CORPORATION,
RESPONDENT

DECISION APPROVING SETTLEMENT

Before: Judge Merlin

The Solicitor has filed a Motion for Decision and Order Approving Settlement in the above-referenced case. At issue are two violations, originally assessed at $42 each. Settlement is proposed in the original penalty amounts.

Citation No. 2274227 was issued for violation of 30 C.F.R.
77.208A, in that there were stumbling hazards present on the top of the silo. The Solicitor represents that negligence and gravity were moderate. Steel ropes, wooden cap blocks, power cables and metal created both falling and tripping hazards in the area. The Solicitor maintains that full payment of the $42 penalty is appropriate.

Citation No. 2274228 was issued for violation of 30 C.F.R.
77.200, when two openings in the top of the silo floor measuring 6 x 9 were found. The Solicitor asserts that this opening left unguarded posed a free fall hazard of approximately thirty feet. The Solicitor represents that negligence and gravity were moderate and that accordingly, full payment of the $42 penalty is proper.

The Solicitor further represents that the operator is small with an excellent history of prior violations.

I accept the Solicitor's representations and find the proposed settlements in accord with the policies and purposes of the Act. The settlements are therefore APPROVED.
~779
ORDER

The operator is hereby ORDERED to pay $84 within 30 days from the date of this decision.

Paul Merlin
Chief 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