|
No. |
Case Name Docket No. |
Date When Review was Granted |
Description of the Case
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Consol PA Coal Co.
PENN 2021-0084 |
7/18/22 |
Whether the Judge erred in concluding that a missing keeper pin violated 30 C.F.R. § 75.1725(a), that the violation was S&S, and that the violation was caused by low negligence; and whether the Judge erred in concluding that the operator’s permissibility violation was S&S. |
|
|
2 |
Rulon Harper Constr., Inc., WEST 2022-0249, 2022-0250 |
12/15/22 |
(1) Whether the Judge abused her discretion in denying the motions to approve settlement. (2) Whether the Secretary has unreviewable discretion to remove an S&S designation from a contested citation without the Commission’s approval under section 110(k) of the Mine Act. |
|
|
3 |
Canyon Fuel Co. and Tanner, emp. by Canyon Fuel Co.
WEST 2021-188, et al. |
06/30/23 |
(1) Whether the Judge erred in finding that the operator had violated 30 C.F.R. § 50.10(b), that the violation was S&S and caused by unwarrantable failure; (2) whether the Judge erred in finding Allred and Cooper individually liable under section 110(c) for the operator’s violation of section 50.10(b); (2) Whether the Judge erred in finding that the operator violated 30 C.F.R. § 75.202(a); (3) whether the Judge erred in holding that Order No. 8541991 was not duplicative of Citation No. 8541894. |
|
|
4 |
Cactus Canyon Quarries, Inc.
CENT 2022-0010 et al. |
6/30/23 |
Whether a stone finishing plant constitutes a “mine” under section 3(h)(1)(c) of the Mine Act? |
|
|
5 |
Morton Salt, Inc.
CENT 2022-0176 |
8/2/23 |
Whether the Judge erred in concluding that violations of 30 C.F.R. §§ 57.3200 and 57.11053(c) were not significant and substantial. |
|
|
6 |
Matney v. Rockwell Mining, LLC
WEVA 2023-0126 |
1/17/24 |
Whether the Judge erred in sustaining a section 105(c)(3) complaint based on the operator’s alleged Part 90 violations. |
|
|
7 |
Prairie State Generating Company, LLC
LAKE 2022-0017 |
4/11/24 |
Whether the Judge erred in finding the violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.517 was significant and substantial. |
|
|
8 |
Nally & Hamilton Enterprises, Inc.
KENT 2022-0084 |
5/14/24 |
Whether substantial evidence supports the Judge’s finding that a tree was not a hazardous condition that had to be reported and corrected within the meaning of 30 C.F.R. § 77.1713(a). |
|
|
9 |
Cargill Inc.,
LAKE 2022-0285 et al |
9/26/24 |
(1) Whether substantial evidence supports the Judge’s determination that the operator did not violate 30 C.F.R. § 57.11051(a); (2) Whether the Judge erred in concluding that, even if a violation had been established, a lack of notice did not support the assessment of a penalty. |
|
|
10 |
Cactus Canyon Quarries, Inc.
CENT 2023-0045 |
10/9/24 |
(1) Whether the Judge erred in denying a motion for recusal filed by the operator; (2) Whether a stone finishing plant constitutes a “mine” under section 3(h)(1)(c) of the Mine Act. |
|
|
11 |
GMS Mine Repair & Maintenance
VA 2023-0021 |
10/16/24 |
(1) Whether the Secretary is collaterally estopped from enforcing a safeguard notice; (2) Whether the Judge erred in concluding that the operator violated a safeguard notice. |
|
|
12 |
National Lime and Stone Co.
LAKE 2024-0064 |
01/13/25 |
Whether the Judge erred in concluding that a piece of equipment was subject to the Mine Act. |
|
|
13 |
W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Co.
SE 2023-0094 |
01/23/25 |
Whether the Judge erred in concluding that the operator violated 30 C.F.R. 56.4500 and that the violation was S&S. |
|
|
14 |
Sec’y obo Rubio v. Castle Mountain Venture
WEST 2024-0283 |
01/30/25 |
Whether the Judge erred in sealing a settlement agreement. |
|
|
15 |
Sec’y obo Barnes and Hall v. Warrior Met Coal Mining, LLC
SE 2021-0152, 2021-0155 |
02/13/25 |
Whether the Judge erred in concluding that the operator had violated section 105(c) of the Mine Act; (2) Whether the Judge’s assessment of penalty was erroneous; (3) whether the Judge erred in awarding prejudgment interest on backpay |
|
|
16 |
Disciplinary Proceeding
CENT 2025-0180 |
03/13/25 |
Whether counsel should be subject to disciplinary proceedings under 29 C.F.R. 2700.80. |
|
|
17 |
Palo v. U.S. Steel Corp.
LAKE 2023-0202-DM |
07/24/25 |
Whether the Judge erred in concluding that the operator did not discriminate against the miner in violation of section 105(c) of the Mine Act. |
|
|
18 |
Peabody SE Mining, LLC
SE 2023-0065, 2023-0102 |
08/04/25 |
Whether the Judge erred in concluding that a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.400 was the result of unwarrantable failure; and (2) Whether the Judge erred in concluding that a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.363(a) was the result of unwarrantable failure.
|
|
|
19 |
Peabody SE Mining, LLC
SE 2023-0020, 2023-0060 |
08/04/25 |
Whether the Judge erred in concluding that a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.202(a) was the result of unwarrantable failure; (2) Whether the Judge erred in concluding that a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.360(b) was the result of unwarrantable failure; and (3) Whether the Judge erred in concluding that a violation of 30 C.F.R. § 75.400 was the result of unwarrantable failure. |
|