Ezel / Agency Decisions / weva-91-1759-alj
FMSHRC ALJ decision Docket WEVA 91-1759, WEVA 91-1160-R, WEVA 91-1161-R Decided October 18, 1991 Procedural Judge James A. Broderick Transcribed from scan

Ruby Helen Coal Company

Ruby Helen Coal Company (FMSHRC WEVA 91-1759 and WEVA 91-1160-R through WEVA 91-1161-R): Proceedings stayed pending criminal case

Apply this to your situation

This order from 1991 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 1991
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 order, not Commission precedent
This order 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. 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.
Transcribed from a scanned original: FMSHRC released this decision as an image-only file. The full text below is a machine transcription, proofread against the scan. Check the official release before quoting exact language.
Read the official release (fmshrc.gov)

Plain-English summary

Ruby Helen Coal Company was involved in contest proceedings and a civil penalty proceeding concerning its Mine No. 1 dust-sampling program. The company stated that it had entered an agreement to plead guilty to conspiracy to defraud the Mine Safety and Health Administration. The Secretary of Labor agreed to move to dismiss pending civil penalty proceedings involving the dust-sampling laws. Judge James A. Broderick granted the motion to stay and paused the proceedings until the related criminal proceedings were concluded.

Decision snapshot

  • Cited standards: None identified in the release.
  • Outcome: The motion to stay was granted, and the proceedings were stayed until the related criminal proceedings concluded.
  • Key point: The ALJ paused the contest and civil penalty proceedings while the parties' related criminal proceedings were pending.

Full text (FMSHRC public release)

CCASE:
RUBY HELEN COAL V. (MSHA)
DDATE:
19911018
TTEXT:

Page 2

~1773
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Office of Administrative Law Judges

RUBY HELEN COAL COMPANY, CONTEST PROCEEDINGS
CONTESTANT
Docket No. WEVA 91-1160-R
v. through WEVA 91-1161-R

SECRETARY OF LABOR, Mine No. 1
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA),
RESPONDENT

SECRETARY OF LABOR, CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDING
MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH
ADMINISTRATION (MSHA), Docket No. WEVA 91-1759
PETITIONER A.C. No. 46-07554-03512D

      v.                              Mine No. 1

RUBY HELEN COAL COMPANY,
RESPONDENT

                   ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS

 On September 27, 1991, Counsel for Contestant/Respondent

filed a motion to stay further proceedings in these cases. As
grounds for the motion Contestant/Respondent states that it has
entered into an agreement to plead guilty to a charge of
conspiracy to defraud the Mine Safety and Health Administration
in connection with Contestant/Respondent's dust sampling program.
As part of the plea bargain agreement, the Secretary of Labor has
agreed to move to dismiss any pending civil penalty proceedings
for violations of the laws governing the dust sampling program.

 The motion states that Counsel for the Secretary consents to

the entry of an order staying these proceedings.

 Premises considered, the motion is GRANTED. The above

proceedings are STAYED until all criminal proceedings concerning
Contestant/Respondent have been concluded.

                               James A. Broderick
                               Administrative Law Judge

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what one judge decided for one employer in 1991, and it binds only those parties. Ezel checks the current MSHA standards and Commission precedent and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.