Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission

Date Updated:
07/05/2017

Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission

 


No.


Case Name

Docket No.

Date When Review was Granted



Description of the Case

1

Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co.

 

PENN 2013-385

9/8/15

Whether the Judge erred in making high negligence and unwarrantable failure findings.

2

Nally & Hamilton Enterprises, Inc.

 

KENT 2012-749, et al.

9/28/15

Whether the Judge erred in concluding that two violations were not significant and substantial.

3

Consolidation Coal Co.

 

VA 2012-42

11/30/15

Whether the Judge erred by concluding that a deep cut in violation of a roof control plan was not “significant and substantial.”

4

Pocahontas Coal Co.


WEVA 2014-395-R, et al.

1/6/16

Whether the Judge erred by finding that MSHA had established a pattern of violations at the mine in question.

5

Peabody Twentymile Mining, LLC


WEST 2014-930-R

1/8/16

Whether the Judge erred by rejecting consideration of the operator’s approved ventilation plan in interpreting a mandatory standard governing ventilation.

6

Sims Crane


SE 2015-315

6/1/16

Whether the Judge erred in interpreting the standard providing that miners must stay clear of the suspended loads of a crane.

7

Secretary o/b/o

Greathouse, et al. v.

Monogalia County Coal Co., et al.


WEVA 2015-904-D et al.

6/9/16

Whether the Judge erred in ruling that certain bonus plans instituted by the operators interfered with miners’ rights under the Mine Act.

8

Mach Mining, Inc.


LAKE 2014-77, et al.

7/1/16

Whether the Judge erred by ruling that the operator did not violate the standard requiring that electrical protection devices on high-voltage longwall equipment be maintained.

9

Arnold Stone Co.


CENT 2016-95-M

8/26/16

Whether the Judge erred in concluding that a violation involving a loader with a defective safety lockout did not result from an unwarrantable failure to comply.

10

Canyon Fuel Co.


WEST 2015-635

9/26/16

Whether the Judge erred in concluding that the operator had violated a standard governing alternate escapeways.

11

Mach Mining, Inc.


LAKE 2014-746

9/29/16

Whether the Judge erred in upholding citations for excessive accumulations of coal and finding that they were S&S and resulted from high negligence.

12

The American Coal Co.


LAKE 2011-701

11/28/16

Whether on remand the Judge erred by not adequately explaining the basis for the assessed penalty amounts.

13

Secretary o/b/o McGary, et al.

v.

The Marshall County Coal Co., et al.


WEVA 2015-583-D, et al.

12/6/16

Whether on remand the Judge erred in requiring the operators’ CEO to personally read a prepared statement at the mines in question.

14

Lehigh Anthracite Coal, LLC, and

Wetzel


PENN 2014-108 et al.

1/3/17

Whether the Judge erred by ruling that sending a miner into the pit in question constituted “high negligence” rather than “reckless disregard.”

15

Kentucky Fuel Corp.


KENT 2015-383

1/12/17

Whether the Judge erred in finding high negligence with respect to a violation for inadequate training of a miner.

16

Alcoa World Alumina, LLC


CENT 2015-128-M, et al.

2/17/17

Whether the Judge erred in making negligence and unwarrantable failure determinations because he did not treat a particular employee as an agent of the operator.

17

Sims Crane


SE 2016-81

2/22/17

Whether the Judge erred in upholding a citation alleging that a miner had not used fall protection when required.

18

Signal Peak Energy, LLC


WEST 2016-624-R

4/17/17

Whether the Judge erred in concluding that the MSHA District Manager did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in rejecting the operator’s ventilation plan.

19

Pappas v. CalPortland Co., et al.


WEST 2016-264-DM

5/9/17

Whether the Judge erred in ruling that the operators had not discriminated against the miner by not rehiring him.

20

M-Class Mining, LLC


LAKE 2012-519

5/12/17

Whether the Judge erred by concluding that miner was not required to wear gloves while troubleshooting an energized continuous mining machine.

21

The American Coal Co.


LAKE 2011-13

5/25/17

On interlocutory review, whether the Judge applied an incorrect legal standard in denying the Secretary’s revised motion to approve settlement.

22

Wilson, et al. V. Armstrong Coal Co.


KENT 2015-673-D, et al.

6/15/17

On cross petitions, whether the Judge erred in ruling whether or not the operator interfered with the rights of miners’ representatives.