20 C.F.R. § 725.401
Claims development—general
After a claim has been received by the district director, the district director shall take such action as is necessary to develop, process, and make determinations with respect to the claim as provided in this subpart.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Arch Coal, Inc. v. Hugler, 242 F. Supp. 3d 13 (D.D.C. 2017).
Arch Coal, Inc. v. Hugler, 242 F. Supp. 3d 13 (D.D.C. 2017). “§ 919 ; 20 C.F.R. § 725.401 . The District Director then investigates the claim and makes a preliminary determination of the miner’s eligibility and of the Responsible Operator.”
Michael Day, Jr. v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys., 907 F.3d 766 (4th Cir. 2018). “20 C.F.R. § 725.401 . If the miner is not satisfied with this determination, he or she is next able to challenge the director's decision before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. August Mangifest, 826 F.2d 1318 (3rd Cir. 1987). “We note also that the gap between form and substance may be bridged if the OWCP, pursuant to its obligation to develop the record, see 20 C.F.R. § 725.401 (1987), 18 attempts to discover the documentation and reasoning behind noncomplying reports.”
Labelle Processing Co. v. John Swarrow & Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 72 F.3d 308 (3rd Cir. 1996). “See generally 20 C.F.R. § 725.401 -.418. Any party objecting to the District *313 Director’s decision may request reconsideration or a formal hearing before an ALJ.”
U.S. Steel Mining Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 386 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2004). “20 C.F.R. § 725.401 ef seq. After the parties have submitted evidence, the District Director will issue a proposed decision and order resolving the claim by awarding or denying benefits.”
Arkansas Coals, Inc. v. Albert Lawson, 739 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2014). “20 C.F.R. §§ 725.401 , 725.418(d). The responsible operator may then request a de novo hearing before an administrative law judge (“ALJ”).”
Appleton & Ratliff Coal Corp. v. Dewey Ratliff, 664 F. App'x 470 (6th Cir. 2016). “See generally, 20 C.F.R. § 725.401 et seq. For one, the director reviews the miner’s employment history, and identifies “one or more [mine] operators potentially hable for the payment of benefits.”
Ken Lick Coal Co. v. OWCP, 129 F.4th 370 (6th Cir. 2025). “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.401 , -.418. As part of the investigation, the district director examines whether any of the miner’s prior employers must pay the benefits.”
Cumberland River Coal Co. v. Caudill, 207 F. App'x 529 (6th Cir. 2006). “414 , which the Old Ben court reads to require Caudill to submit to a new medical examination and turn over recent medical records, must be read in light of 20 C.F.R. § 725.401 . Section 725.401 provides that subpart E, which is where § 725.”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 669 F.2d 187 (4th Cir. 1982). “20 C.F.R. § 725.401 , 404-09. Based upon the evidence developed, the commissioner is to make an initial finding of eligibility.”
Lockworth, Inc. v. OWCP (6th Cir. 2021). “” 20 C.F.R. § 725.401 . Following an informal adjudication, during which the “responsible operator” can submit evidence responding to the claim, id.”
Scalia v. Chevron Mining, Inc. (W.D. Ky. 2021). “20 C.F.R. § 725.401 . Next, a formal hearing before an administrative law judge may be requested.”
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.