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 E—Adjudication of Claims by the District Director

20 C.F.R. § 725.405

Development of medical evidence; scheduling of medical examinations and tests

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

(a) Upon receipt of a claim, the district director shall ascertain whether the claim was filed by or on account of a miner as defined in § 725.202, and in the case of a claim filed on account of a deceased miner, whether the claim was filed by an eligible survivor of such miner as defined in subpart B of this part.

(b) In the case of a claim filed by or on behalf of a miner, the district director shall, where necessary, schedule the miner for a medical examination and testing under § 725.406.

(c) In the case of a claim filed by or on behalf of a survivor of a miner, the district director shall obtain whatever medical evidence is necessary and available for the development and evaluation of the claim.

(d) The district director shall, where appropriate, collect other evidence necessary to establish:

(1) The nature and duration of the miner's employment; and

(2) All other matters relevant to the determination of the claim.

(e) If at any time during the processing of the claim by the district director, the evidence establishes that the claimant is not entitled to benefits under the Act, the district director may terminate evidentiary development of the claim and proceed as appropriate.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1983–2012 · leading case: Edmonds v. Illinois Workers'Comp., 2012 IL App (5th) 110118WC, 968 N.E.2d 775.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Edmonds v. Illinois Workers'Comp., 2012 IL App (5th) 110118WC, 968 N.E.2d 775. · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. §§ 725.405 (b), 725.406 (2002).”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. Lennis Simmons, 706 F.2d 481 (4th Cir. 1983). “20 C.F.R. §§ 725.405 , -.406, -.407(a), (b), -410(b), -.”
Andring v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd., 508 A.2d 1324 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1986). “20 C.F.R. §725.405 (1978). Then,“[b]ased upon the evidence developed, the deputy commissioner may make an initial finding with respect to the claim.”
Cline v. Dir. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 917 F.2d 9 (8th Cir. 1990). “§ 923 (b); 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.405 (b), 718.101. As this court has held in Newman v.”
Cline v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 972 F.2d 234 (8th Cir. 1992). “§ 923 (b); 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.405 (b) and 718.101. Based on this conclusion, the case was remanded to the Benefits Review Board for the purpose of allowing an administrative law judge to hold an evidentiary hearing to reconsider evidence relating to the etiology of claimant’s…”
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.