Federal Agency Decisions
Workplace-safety cases from the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC), mine-safety cases from the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC), and environmental appeals from the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board, each with a plain-English summary, the standards it cites, and whether it counts as precedent. More agencies are coming.
No decisions match these filters
Try fewer or different words, check the spelling, or clear the filters to browse everything.
Dynatec Mining Corporation
EAJA fee application dismissed
Dynatec Mining applied for attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act after earlier Mine Act litigation reduced the proposed penalty from $700,000 to $60,000. The Secretary moved to dismiss, arguing that Dynatec was not an eligible party because the net worth and employees of…
Portable Rock Production Co.
EAJA settlement approved for $13,000
Portable Rock Production applied for fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act in a proceeding formerly associated with WEST 99-309-M. The parties jointly asked the judge to approve a settlement and dismiss the case after payment of $13,000. Judge Gary Melick approved the settlement…
Farrell-Cooper Mining Company
EAJA fee application dismissed after settlement
Farrell-Cooper Mining Company applied for attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act after an underlying Mine Act matter. The parties agreed to dismiss the application after the Secretary accepted that ground control plans do not require MSHA approval to be deemed filed under…
L & T Fabrication & Construction, Inc.
EAJA fee application denied
L & T Fabrication & Construction, a small construction contractor working at a Wyoming coal mine, sought $14,809.82 in attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act. The underlying case involved a falling handrail that permanently paralyzed an employee, and the ALJ reduced MSHA's…
Contractors Sand and Gravel, Inc.
EAJA award set at $99,935.51 on remand
Contractors Sand and Gravel pursued attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act after the D.C. Circuit held that the Secretary's position in the underlying case was not substantially justified. The Commission reinstated the judge's EAJA award and remanded for calculation of…
Contractors Sand and Gravel, Inc.
EAJA fee award reinstated and remanded
Contractors Sand and Gravel had prevailed in an earlier Mine Act case, and an Administrative Law Judge awarded attorney's fees and expenses after finding that the Secretary's position was not substantially justified. The Commission later reversed that award, but the D.C. Circuit held that the…
Black Diamond Construction, Inc.
EAJA award affirmed and remanded for additional fees
Black Diamond Construction performed work to eliminate a coal refuse impoundment so longwall mining could proceed beneath it. MSHA cited two Black Diamond employees under the Part 48 training rules, but the Secretary later vacated the citations before trial. An ALJ awarded Black Diamond $14,390.25…
James M. Ray, employed by Journagan Construction Company, Inc.
James M. Ray (FMSHRC EAJ 96-4): EAJA settlement approved
James M. Ray sought attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act after prevailing against MSHA in an individual civil-penalty proceeding. The Commission had ruled that the Secretary's position was not substantially justified as to one citation and remanded the fee case so the…
James M. Ray, employed by Leo Journagan Construction Co., Inc.
EAJA fees claim partly revived
James M. Ray sought attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act after prevailing in an underlying Mine Act proceeding involving two citations at a limestone operation. The Commission held that the Secretary's position was not substantially justified as to the citation involving…
Contractors Sand and Gravel, Inc.
Attorney-fee award vacated
Contractors Sand and Gravel operated a small portable sand and gravel plant where MSHA cited two crusher motors under the electrical-grounding standard. After the company prevailed in the underlying Mine Act case, an ALJ awarded it attorney fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act…
James M. Ray, employed by Leo Journagan Construction
EAJA fee application denied
James M. Ray sought attorney fees and litigation expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act after the Secretary brought Mine Act charges against him individually. The underlying case involved employees working around a crusher and removing rocks from a hopper, including alleged failures to…
Contractor's Sand and Gravel, Inc.
EAJA award of $41,155.05
Contractor's Sand and Gravel challenged an MSHA electrical-grounding citation and obtained a ruling vacating the citation and associated penalties. It then sought attorney fees and other expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Judge August F. Cetti found that the Secretary's litigation…
Rushton Mining Company
Rule 11 fees unavailable in Commission proceedings
Rushton Mining sought attorney's fees and litigation expenses from the Secretary of Labor as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 after the Secretary withdrew a contested withdrawal order and related penalty petition. The Commission held that Rule 11 monetary sanctions do not apply…
What these documents are
- The agencies: Workplace-safety cases from the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC), mine-safety cases from the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC), and environmental permit and penalty appeals from the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). Each decision page names its agency.
- Commission and Board decisions: Rulings by the agency's highest review level (the Commission at OSHRC and FMSHRC, the Environmental Appeals Board at EPA). These are citable as precedent, though a decision may have been appealed to a U.S. Court of Appeals after issuance.
- ALJ decisions: Rulings by the agency's Administrative Law Judges after a hearing. When no Commissioner directs review, an ALJ decision becomes a final order that binds the parties in that case but is not binding precedent: under 29 U.S.C. § 661(j) at OSHRC, and after the 40-day window of 30 U.S.C. § 823(d)(1) at FMSHRC.
- Why finality matters: Every page here says which kind of decision you are reading, so you know whether it is precedent you can cite or a final order that only shows how one judge ruled on one set of facts.
- Where they come from: Every page links the official public release from the deciding agency, and the full text on the page is that release. The plain-English summaries are written by Ezel.