Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission

Date Updated:
06/15/2022

Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission

No.

 

Case Name

Docket No.

Date When Review was Granted

 

Description of the Case

 

1

Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC

 

LAKE 2017-0450

9/17/20

Whether the Commission erred by failing to assume the existence of an emergency in determining whether a violation of an emergency standard was “significant and substantial.”

2

Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co., LLC 

PENN 2019-0094

4/16/21

Whether the Judge erred in concluding that the location of a lifeline violated a safety standard and constituted an S&S violation. 

3

Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC, and Butler

LAKE 2019-0023, et al.

7/19/21

Whether the Judge erred in concluding that the operator violated standards when it failed to immediately de-energize equipment when it encountered high methane levels, whether the violation was S&S, and whether a supervisor was liable for individual penalties. 

4

Thomas v. CalPortland Co.

WEST 2018-402-DM and WEST 2019-0205

1/10/22

Whether the Judge erred in ruling that the miner had established that the operator had discriminated against him under section 105(c)(3) of the Mine Act. 

5

Saldivar v. Grimes Rock, Inc.

WEST 2021-0178

1/14/22

Whether in a temporary reinstatement case, the Judge erred in ruling that economic reinstatement for the miner should not be tolled. 

6

American Soda, LLC formerly known as Solvay Chemicals, Inc.

WEST 2020-0278

12/14/21

Whether the Judge erred in concluding that the operator had failed to report an accident in a timely manner. 

7

Crimson Oak Grove Resources, LLC

SE 2021-0112, et al

3/2/22

Whether the Judge erred in denying motions to settle based on his conclusion that the Secretary had failed to provide sufficient information to support the vacating of penalties. 

8

Knight Hawk Coal, LLC

LAKE 2021-0160

 

4/7/22

Whether the Judge erred in denying motions to settle based on his conclusion that the Secretary had failed to provide sufficient information to support the removal of a “significant and substantial” designation.   

9

Sec’y o/b/o Otten v. Continental Cement Co.

CENT 2021-0013

4/8/22

Whether the Judge erred in concluding that the operator took an adverse employment action against complainant in violation of the anti-discrimination provisions of section 105(c) and the walk-around rights of section 103(f).

10

Sec’y o/b/o Smitherman v. Warrior Met Coal Mining LLC

SE 2021-0153

6/2/22

Whether the Judge erred in finding that the operator discriminated against complainant in violation of section 105(c) of the Mine Act.