C.F.R. » Title 20 » CHAPTER VI—OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR › SUBCHAPTER B—FEDERAL COAL MINE HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT OF 1969, AS AMENDED › PART 725—CLAIMS FOR BENEFITS UNDER PART C OF TITLE IV OF THE FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT, AS AMENDED › Subpart D—Adjudication Officers; Parties and Representatives

20 C.F.R. § 725.351

Powers of adjudication officers

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

(a) District Director. The district director is authorized to:

(1) Make determinations with respect to claims as is provided in this part;

(2) Conduct conferences and informal discovery proceedings as provided in this part;

(3) Compel the production of documents by the issuance of a subpoena;

(4) Prepare documents for the signature of parties;

(5) Issue appropriate orders as provided in this part; and

(6) Do all other things necessary to enable him or her to discharge the duties of the office.

(b) Administrative Law Judge. An administrative law judge is authorized to:

(1) Conduct formal hearings in accordance with the provisions of this part;

(2) Administer oaths and examine witnesses;

(3) Compel the production of documents and appearance of witnesses by the issuance of subpoenas;

(4) Issue decisions and orders with respect to claims as provided in this part; and

(5) Do all other things necessary to enable him or her to discharge the duties of the office.

(c) If any person in proceedings before an adjudication officer disobeys or resists any lawful order or process, or misbehaves during a hearing or so near the place thereof as to obstruct the same, or neglects to produce, after having been ordered to do so, any pertinent book, paper or document, or refuses to appear after having been subpoenaed, or upon appearing refuses to take the oath as a witness, or after having taken the oath refuses to be examined according to law, the district director, or the administrative law judge responsible for the adjudication of the claim, shall certify the facts to the Federal district court having jurisdiction in the place in which he or she is sitting (or to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia if he or she is sitting in the District) which shall thereupon in a summary manner hear the evidence as to the acts complained of, and, if the evidence so warrants, punish such person in the same manner and to the same extent as for a contempt committed before the court, or commit such person upon the same condition as if the doing of the forbidden act had occurred with reference to the process or in the presence of the court.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2023 · leading case: Edmonds v. Illinois Workers'Comp., 968 N.E.2d 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Edmonds v. Illinois Workers'Comp., 968 N.E.2d 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 4× “455 (a) (2002)); and that any contemptuous behavior must be certified to a federal district court which then holds a hearing ( 20 C.F.R. § 725.351 (c) (2002)). Claimant views the district director's role as investigative or administrative in nature rather than adjudicatory.”
Arch Coal, Inc. v. R. Alexander Acosta, 888 F.3d 493 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “" 20 C.F.R. § 725.351 . If Arch appeals an ALJ's orders denying discovery or refusing to compel the appearance of witnesses as legally erroneous or an abuse of discretion, the Board may vacate those orders and remand for further proceedings.”
K & R Contractors, LLC v. Michael Keene, 86 F.4th 135 (4th Cir. 2023). “868 , 881–882 (1991)); 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.351 (b), 725.452–725.476.”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. Drummond Coal Co. & Miles Cornelius, 831 F.2d 240 (11th Cir. 1987). “” 20 C.F.R. § 725.351 (b)(5). For these reasons, we conclude that AU Howard had ample authority to sua sponte vacate the deputy commissioner’s modification order and reinstate his own determination.”
Lockworth, Inc. v. OWCP (6th Cir. 2021). “20 C.F.R. §§ 725.351 (b), 725.455. Following the hearing, the ALJ issues a benefits determination, one that becomes final if no party seeks reconsideration or appeals to the Benefits Review Board.”
Consolidation Coal v. William Kusch, 413 F. App'x 552 (3rd Cir. 2011). “Further, 20 C.F.R. § 725.351 (b)(5) gives the ALJ substantial authority over procedural issues, including to “[d]o all other things necessary to enable him or her to discharge the duties of the office.”
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.