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. § 725.413

Disclosure of medical information

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

(a) For purposes of this section, medical information is any written medical data, including data in electronic format, about the miner that a party develops in connection with a claim for benefits, including medical data developed with any prior claim that has not been disclosed previously to the other parties. Medical information includes, but is not limited to—

(1) Any examining physician's written or testimonial assessment of the miner, including the examiner's findings, diagnoses, conclusions, and the results of any tests;

(2) Any other physician's written or testimonial assessment of the miner's respiratory or pulmonary condition;

(3) The results of any test or procedure related to the miner's respiratory or pulmonary condition, including any information relevant to the test or procedure's administration; and

(4) Any physician's or other medical professional's interpretation of the results of any test or procedure related to the miner's respiratory or pulmonary condition.

(b) For purposes of this section, medical information does not include—

(1) Any record of a miner's hospitalization or other medical treatment; or

(2) Communications from a party's representative to a medical expert.

(c) Each party must disclose medical information the party or the party's agent receives by sending a complete copy of the information to all other parties in the claim within 30 days after receipt. If the information is received after the claim is already scheduled for hearing before an administrative law judge, the disclosure must be made at least 20 days before the scheduled hearing is held (see § 725.456(b)).

(d) Medical information disclosed under this section must not be considered in adjudicating any claim unless a party designates the information as evidence in the claim.

(e) At the request of any party or on his or her own motion, an adjudication officer may impose sanctions on any party or his or her representative who fails to timely disclose medical information in compliance with this section.

(1) Sanctions must be appropriate to the circumstances and may only be imposed after giving the party an opportunity to demonstrate good cause why disclosure was not made and sanctions are not warranted. In determining an appropriate sanction, the adjudication officer must consider—

(i) Whether the sanction should be mitigated because the party was not represented by an attorney when the information should have been disclosed; and

(ii) Whether the party should not be sanctioned because the failure to disclose was attributable solely to the party's attorney.

(2) Sanctions may include, but are not limited to—

(i) Drawing an adverse inference against the non-disclosing party on the facts relevant to the disclosure;

(ii) Limiting the non-disclosing party's claims, defenses or right to introduce evidence;

(iii) Dismissing the claim proceeding if the non-disclosing party is the claimant and no payments prior to final adjudication have been made to the claimant unless the Director agrees to the dismissal in writing (see § 725.465(d));

(iv) Rendering a default decision against the non-disclosing party;

(v) Disqualifying the non-disclosing party's attorney from further participation in the claim proceedings; and

(vi) Relieving a claimant who files a subsequent claim from the impact of § 725.309(c)(6) if the non-disclosed evidence predates the denial of the prior claim and the non-disclosing party is the operator.

(3) Sanctions must not include—

(i) Fines or

(ii) Imprisonment.

(4) Sanctions imposed by a district director are subject to review by an administrative law judge in accordance with the provisions of this part.

(f) This rule applies to—

(1) All claims filed after May 26, 2016;

(2) Pending claims not yet adjudicated by an administrative law judge, except that medical information received prior to May 26, 2016 and not previously disclosed must be provided to the other parties within 60 days of May 26, 2016; and

(3) Pending claims already adjudicated by an administrative law judge where—

(i) The administrative law judge reopens the record for receipt of additional evidence in response to a timely reconsideration motion (see § 725.479(b)) or after remand by the Benefits Review Board or a reviewing court; or

(ii) A party requests modification of the award or denial of benefits (see § 725.310(a)).

(The Office of Management and Budget has approved the information collection contained in this section and assigned control number 1240-0054 with an expiration date of May 31, 2019.) [81 FR 24480, Apr. 26, 2016, as amended at 81 FR 31854, May 20, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1985–2009 · leading case: Arch of Kentucky, Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp., 556 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arch of Kentucky, Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp., 556 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “If the company failed to respond within thirty days, the company would “be deemed to have accepted the initial finding, and this failure shall be considered a waiver of [the company’s] right to contest this claim unless good cause is shown to excuse such failure (20 CFR…”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. Opal Bivens, George Hill, 757 F.2d 781 (6th Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “An operator receiving notice from a deputy commissioner is required to respond within thirty days under 20 C.F.R. § 725.413 (1984). Significantly, § 725.”
Jonida Trucking, Inc. v. Robert F. Hunt Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 124 F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 1997). “Therefore, under 20 C.F.R. section 725.413, Jonida is deemed to have accepted the finding of the Director that it is the responsible operator, unless good cause for failure to respond is shown.”
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). · cites it 2× “” 20 C.F.R. § 725.413 (a). In addition, if initial findings have been made, “the operator shall indi *637 cate its agreement or disagreement with each such finding.”
Robert West v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 896 F.2d 308 (8th Cir. 1990). “See 20 C.F.R. § 725.413 (a). Section 725.413(a) gives operators 30 days “unless such period is extended .”
Tazco, Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers Comp. Prog., 895 F.2d 949 (4th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 725.413 . The Notice was sent to Tazco, but not to its insurance carrier, Old Republic Insurance Company.”
Pothering v. Parkson Coal Co., 861 F.2d 1321 (3d Cir. 1988). “Given Parkson’s decision not to file a controversion within 30 days, the Benefits Review Board properly ruled that the Deputy Commissioner’s award of survivor’s benefits to Mrs.”
Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v. Benefits Review Bd., United States Dep't of Labor, 942 F.2d 415 (7th Cir. 1991). · cites it 4× “” This statement is the equivalent of a finding of “good cause shown” under 20 C.F.R. § 725.413 (a). The problem with such a finding is that there is no such exception under § 725.”
Johnson v. Royal Coal Co., 326 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “They suggest 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.413 (a), 725.417(a), 725.”
Nat'l Mines Corp. v. Carroll, 64 F.3d 135 (3d Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.413 , 725.412. The DOL required National Mines to file a controversion to the determination within 30 days or be deemed to have accepted the initial finding of entitlement and to have waived its right to contest the claim, absent good cause shown.”
E. Associated Coal Corp. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 104 F. App'x 912 (4th Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.413 (b)(3), 725.414(b) (1997).”
Arch of Kentucky, Inc. v. Fred Hatfield (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “If the company failed to respond within thirty days, the company would “be deemed to have accepted the initial finding, and this failure shall be considered a waiver of [the company’s] right to contest this claim unless good cause is shown to excuse such failure (20 CFR…”
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.