20 C.F.R. § 718.3

Scope and intent of this part

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This part sets forth the standards to be applied in determining whether a coal miner is or was totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis or died due to pneumoconiosis. It also specifies the procedures and requirements to be followed in conducting medical examinations and in administering various tests relevant to such determinations.

(b) This part is designed to interpret the presumptions contained in section 411(c) of the Act, evidentiary standards and criteria contained in section 413(b) of the Act and definitional requirements and standards contained in section 402(f) of the Act within a coherent framework for the adjudication of claims. It is intended that these enumerated provisions of the Act be construed as provided in this part.

[65 FR 80045, Dec. 20, 2000, as amended at 78 FR 59114, Sept. 25, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1988–2010 · leading case: Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994).
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (1994). · cites it 2× “” 20 CFR § 718.3 (c) (1993). But we do not think this regulation can fairly be read as authorizing the true doubt rule and rejecting the APA’s burden of proof provision.”
Gunderson v. United States Dep't of Labor, 601 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. §§718.3 , 718.202, 718.203, 718.”
Helen Hillibush, Widow of Edward Hillibush, Deceased v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, Benefits Review Bd., 853 F.2d 197 (3d Cir. 1988). “” 20 C.F.R. § 718.3 (c) (1987). 13 . Subsections (c)(1) — (c)(4) of § 718.”
United States Ex Rel. Mikes v. Straus, 84 F. Supp. 2d 427 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). “1 (stating that purpose of following regulations is to implement Section 6 of Radiation Exposure Compensation Act authorizing Attorney General to establish procedures for making payments to qualifying individuals who contracted one of diseases covered under Act); 20 C.F.R. §…”
Gene Beatty v. Danri Corp. & Triangle Enter. & Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 49 F.3d 993 (3d Cir. 1995). “Further, Beatty argues that the agency itself assumed this obligation by incorporating this expectation into its regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 718.3 (c) (1993). Both the full contribution standard urged by Beatty and the limited contribution standard urged by the Director allow…”
Shrewsbury Coal Co v. Keffer, No. 99-1017 (4th Cir. Mar. 21, 2000). “§ 901 (a); 20 C.F.R. §§ 718.3 , 718.202, 718.203, 718.”
Beatty v. Danri Corp, No. 94-3227 (3d Cir. Mar. 9, 1995). “Further, Beatty argues that the agency itself assumed this obligation by incorporating this expectation into its regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 718.3 (c) (1993). Both the full contribution standard urged by Beatty and the limited contribution standard urged by the Director allow…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.