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. § 725.412

Operator's response

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

(a)(1) Within 30 days after the district director issues a schedule pursuant to § 725.410 of this part containing a designation of the responsible operator liable for the payment of benefits, that operator shall file a response with regard to its liability. The response shall specifically indicate whether the operator agrees or disagrees with the district director's designation.

(2) If the responsible operator designated by the district director does not file a timely response, it shall be deemed to have accepted the district director's designation with respect to its liability, and to have waived its right to contest its liability in any further proceeding conducted with respect to the claim.

(b) The responsible operator designated by the district director may also file a statement accepting claimant's entitlement to benefits. If that operator fails to file a timely response to the district director's designation, the district director shall, upon receipt of such a statement, issue a proposed decision and order in accordance with § 725.418 of this part. If the operator fails to file a statement accepting the claimant's entitlement to benefits within 30 days after the district director issues a schedule pursuant to § 725.410 of this part, the operator shall be deemed to have contested the claimant's entitlement.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Oglebay Norton Co., 877 F.2d 1300 (6th Cir. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Oglebay Norton Co., 877 F.2d 1300 (6th Cir. 1989). · cites it 11× “ANALYSIS The Director contends that the deputy commissioner’s identification of Oglebay as the responsible operator was proper under 20 C.F.R. § 725.412 (a). Additionally, the Director argues that the AU improperly transferred liability to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.”
Armando Venicassa v. Consolidation Coal Co. & Dir., 137 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 1998). · cites it 7× “which may be liable for the payment of the claim____ Such identification shall be made as soon after the filing of the claim as the evidence obtained permits____ 20 C.F.R. § 725.412 (a). The responsible operator is defined as “the operator or other employer with which the…”
Consolidation Coal Co. v. Albert A. Borda Dir., 171 F.3d 175 (4th Cir. 1999). “The fact that the Department of Labor’s regulations do not require it to notify a responsible operator in a Part 727 case until an initial determination of eligibility is made, see 20 C.F.R. § 725.412 , or the claimant requests a formal hearing after the initial denial of his…”
Appleton & Ratliff Coal Corp. v. Dewey Ratliff, 664 F. App'x 470 (6th Cir. 2016). “” 20 C.F.R. § 725.412 (a)(1). This includes “submit[ting] evidence to demonstrate that it is not the potentially liable operator that most recently employed the claimant.”
Daniels Co. v. Freda Mitchell, 479 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2007). “It is the Director’s burden to identify the responsible operator, see 20 C.F.R. § 725.412 (2000), and to develop evidence sufficient to support the conclusion that a potentially responsible operator is liable for benefits.”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. Opal Bivens, 757 F.2d 781 (6th Cir. 1985). “Under 20 C.F.R. § 725.412 (1984), a deputy commissioner is to identify and give notice to a coal mine operator which "may be liable” for benefits as a former employer of the miner.”
Marfork Coal Co. v. Weis, 251 F. App'x 229 (4th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “The ALJ also found that Marfork had waived its right to contest its liability under 20 C.F.R. § 725.412 (a)(2) because it had accepted its designation as responsible operator before the district director.”
Bethenergy Mines Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, & Frank R. Markovich, 854 F.2d 632 (3d Cir. 1988). “” 20 C.F.R. § 725.412 . Once this information is provided to the operator — at least where the deputy commissioner has developed sufficient evidence to make initial findings as to eligibility — it is perfectly reasonable to require the operator to decide whether to accept…”
Pyro Mining Co. v. Slaton, 879 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1989). “” 20 C.F.R. § 725.412 (b). In Slaton, the insurance carrier’s notification failed to include the claim form and the claimant's employment record.”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep't of Labor v. Mason Poyner, 810 F.2d 99 (6th Cir. 1987). “20 C.F.R. § 725.412 (b) (1986) (emphasis added).”
Lane Hollow Coal Co. v. Dir., 137 F.3d 799 (4th Cir. 1998). “Under its own regulations the Department may forego notifying the responsible operator in a Part 727 case 4 until and unless an initial finding of eligibility is made by a deputy commissioner, 20 C.F.R. § 725.412 , or the claim is initially denied and the claimant requests a…”
Caudill Constr. Co. v. Abner, 878 F.2d 179 (6th Cir. 1989). “Moreover, as pointed out by the Director, the deputy commissioner’s conduct was consistent with existing procedures when 20 C.F.R. § 725.412 (c), which permits notification of a new operator where investigation reveals that prior identification was mistaken, is read in…”
Show all 16 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.