|
No. |
Case Name Docket No. |
Date When Review was Granted |
Description of the Case
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
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. |
|
|
2 |
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. |
|
|
3 |
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. |
|
|
4 |
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. |
|
|
5 |
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. |
|
|
6 |
Sec’y obo Rubio v. Castle Mountain Venture
WEST 2024-0283 |
01/30/25 |
Whether the Judge erred in sealing a settlement agreement. |
|
|
7 |
Disciplinary Proceeding
CENT 2025-0180 |
03/13/25 |
Whether counsel should be subject to disciplinary proceedings under 29 C.F.R. 2700.80. |
|
|
8 |
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. |
|
|
9 |
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.
|
|
|
10 |
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. |
|
|
11 |
Iron Mountain Quarry WEST 2024-0218, 2024-0275 |
09/26/25 |
Whether the Judge erred in concluding that the operator violated 30 C.F.R. § 56.14110, 56.20003(a), 56.1101, 56.12032; (2) Whether the operator was impermissibly denied a jury trial; (3) Whether MSHA exercised powers not delegated by Congress. |
|