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. § 725.409

Denial of a claim by reason of abandonment

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

(a) A claim may be denied at any time by the district director by reason of abandonment where the claimant fails:

(1) To undergo a required medical examination without good cause; or,

(2) To submit evidence sufficient to make a determination of the claim; or,

(3) To pursue the claim with reasonable diligence; or,

(4) To attend an informal conference without good cause.

(b)(1) If the district director determines that a denial by reason of abandonment under paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section is appropriate, he or she shall notify the claimant of the reasons for such denial and of the action which must be taken to avoid a denial by reason of abandonment. If the claimant completes the action requested within the time allowed, the claim shall be developed, processed and adjudicated as specified in this part. If the claimant does not fully comply with the action requested by the district director, the district director shall notify the claimant that the claim has been denied by reason of abandonment. Such notification shall be served on the claimant and all other parties to the claim by certified mail.

(2) In any case in which a claimant has failed to attend an informal conference and has not provided the district director with his reasons for failing to attend, the district director shall ask the claimant to explain his absence. In considering whether the claimant had good cause for his failure to attend the conference, the district director shall consider all relevant circumstances, including the age, education, and health of the claimant, as well as the distance between the claimant's residence and the location of the conference. If the district director concludes that the claimant had good cause for failing to attend the conference, he may continue processing the claim, including, where appropriate under § 725.416, the scheduling of an informal conference. If the claimant does not supply the district director with his reasons for failing to attend the conference within 30 days of the date of the district director's request, or the district director concludes that the reasons supplied by the claimant do not establish good cause, the district director shall notify the claimant that the claim has been denied by reason of abandonment. Such notification shall be served on the claimant and all other parties to the claim by certified mail.

(c) The denial of a claim by reason of abandonment shall become effective and final unless, within 30 days after the denial is issued, the claimant requests a hearing. Following the expiration of the 30-day period, a new claim may be filed at any time pursuant to § 725.309. For purposes of § 725.309, a denial by reason of abandonment shall be deemed a finding that the claimant has not established any applicable condition of entitlement. If the claimant timely requests a hearing, the district director shall refer the case to the Office of Administrative Law Judges in accordance with § 725.421. Except upon the motion or written agreement of the Director, the hearing will be limited to the issue of whether the claim was properly denied by reason of abandonment. If the hearing is limited to the issue of abandonment and the administrative law judge determines that the claim was not properly denied by reason of abandonment, he shall remand the claim to the district director for the completion of administrative processing.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1988–2013 · leading case: Consolidation Coal Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 732 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Consolidation Coal Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 732 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “” 20 C.F.R. § 725.409 (c). A coal miner may have either “clinical” or “legal” pneumoconiosis.”
Lisa Lee Mines (Terrilynne Coal Co.) v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor Alva Rutter, 86 F.3d 1358 (4th Cir. 1996). “, 20 C.F.R. § 725.409 (b) (if prior claim has been denied by reason of abandonment, “a new claim may be filed at any time and new evidence submitted where [the claims modification process is unavailable.”
Coleman v. Dir., OWCP, 345 F.3d 861 (11th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “Coleman asserts that her *863 1992 and 1994 claims were still viable because the District Director did not provide her with separate notice, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 725.409 (2000), that her claims would be deemed abandoned if she did not communicate her intent to pursue the…”
Myrtle Clark v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 838 F.2d 197 (6th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “Clark argues that the procedural requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 725.409 (b) are incorporated into § 725.”
Mike Mangus v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor & Price River Coal Co., 882 F.2d 1527 (10th Cir. 1989). “The record contains no evidence that claimant's initial application was deemed abandoned pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 725.409 . However, we find that as a matter of law, had the deputy commissioner been presented with the question, he could only have found that changed circumstances…”
Robert West v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 896 F.2d 308 (8th Cir. 1990). · cites it 3× “The Board affirmed the AU’s decision, rejecting West’s contention that his 1979 claim had not been abandoned and that his 1983 claim should merge with his 1979 claim pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 725.409 (d) (1989). The Board also found that the AU’s determination that West had not…”
Carl Adkins v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 878 F.2d 151 (4th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “410 (c), the Department of Labor (DoL) must send to the claimant an additional denial notice pursu *152 ant to 20 C.F.R. § 725.409 (b) before considering the claim abandoned.”
Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. Chao, 160 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D.D.C. 2001). “20 C.F.R. § 725.409 : This rule provides that when a claim is dismissed as abandoned, the dismissal shall be construed as a finding that the claimant failed to establish any applicable condition of entitlement.”
Katherine Graham v. United States, 96 F.3d 446 (9th Cir. 1996). “403 (notifying certain claimants that they need to file a state workers’ compensation claim within thirty days); 20 C.F.R. § 725.409 (notice sent to claimant by Department of Labor giving reasons for denial of benefits "by reason of abandonment"); 20 C.”
Harold D. Crowe v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, & Zeigler Coal Co., 226 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2000). “In fact, the Review Board even noted that the ALJ erred in interpreting 20 C.F.R. § 725.409 (b), but concluded that the ALJ’s "misinterpretation of this regulation is harmless error, however, in view of our ultimate affirmance of the [ALJ’s] denial of benefits.”
Tonelli v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 878 F.2d 1083 (8th Cir. 1989). “Tonelli asserts that the procedural requirements of 20 C.F.R. § 725.409 (b) are incorporated into § 725.”
Consolidation Coal Co. v. OWCP (7th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 725.409 (c). A coal miner may have either “clinical” or “legal” pneumo‐ coniosis.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
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.