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. § 725.418

Proposed decision and order

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

(a) Within 20 days after the termination of all informal conference proceedings, or, if no informal conference is held, at the conclusion of the period permitted by § 725.410(b) for the submission of evidence, the district director will issue a proposed decision and order. A proposed decision and order is a document, issued by the district director after the evidentiary development of the claim is completed and all contested issues, if any, are joined, which purports to resolve a claim on the basis of the evidence submitted to or obtained by the district director. A proposed decision and order will be considered a final adjudication of a claim only as provided in § 725.419. A proposed decision and order may be issued by the district director at any time during the adjudication of any claim if:

(1) Issuance is authorized or required by this part;

(2) The district director determines that its issuance will expedite the adjudication of the claim; or

(3) The district director determines that the claimant is a survivor who is entitled to benefits under 30 U.S.C. 932(l). In such cases, the district director may designate the responsible operator in the proposed decision and order regardless of whether the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section have been met. Any operator identified as liable for benefits under this paragraph may challenge the finding of liability by timely requesting revision of the proposed decision and order and specifically indicating disagreement with that finding. See 20 CFR 725.419(a) and (b). In such cases, the district director must allow all parties 30 days within which to submit liability evidence. At the end of this period, the district director must issue a new proposed decision and order.

(b) A proposed decision and order must contain findings of fact and conclusions of law. It must be served on all parties to the claim by certified mail.

(c) The proposed decision and order must contain a notice of the right of any interested party to request a formal hearing before the Office of Administrative Law Judges. If the proposed decision and order is a denial of benefits, and the claimant has previously filed a request for a hearing, the proposed decision and order must notify the claimant that the case will be referred for a hearing pursuant to the previous request unless the claimant notifies the district director that he no longer desires a hearing. If the proposed decision and order is an award of benefits, and the designated responsible operator has previously filed a request for a hearing, the proposed decision and order must notify the operator that the case will be referred for a hearing pursuant to the previous request unless the operator notifies the district director that it no longer desires a hearing.

(d) The proposed decision and order must reflect the district director's final designation of the responsible operator liable for the payment of benefits. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, no operator may be finally designated as the responsible operator unless it has received notification of its potential liability pursuant to § 725.407, and the opportunity to submit additional evidence pursuant to § 725.410. The district director must dismiss, as parties to the claim, all other potentially liable operators that received notification pursuant to § 725.407 and that were not previously dismissed pursuant to § 725.410(a)(3).

[78 FR 59118, Sept. 25, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Island Creek Coal Co. v. Melyndia Bryan, 937 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Island Creek Coal Co. v. Melyndia Bryan, 937 F.3d 738 (6th Cir. 2019). “20 C.F.R. § 725.418 (a). From that order, a miner or operator may request a hearing before an administrative law judge.”
Rockwood Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 917 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 725.418 (d). When it issues the PDO, the district director must "dismiss, as parties to the claim, all other potentially liable operators.”
Mabel Samons v. Nat'l Mines Corp., 25 F.4th 455 (6th Cir. 2022). “§ 919 (d); 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.418 , 725.451. A losing party may then appeal that judge’s decision to the Benefits Review Board.”
Apogee Coal Co. v. OWCP, 112 F.4th 343 (6th Cir. 2024). “A carrier’s due process rights in the BLBA context are protected in part by 20 C.F.R. § 725.418 , which states that “no operator may be finally designated as the responsible operator unless it has received notification of its potential liability pursuant to § 725.”
Saginaw Mining Co. v. Mazzulli, 818 F.2d 1278 (6th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “We can only conclude that paragraph (a) of the regulation was intended to apply in those relatively rare circumstances where the proposed decision and order, see 20 C.F.R. § 725.418 , of the deputy commissioner was not opposed by either party within 30 days and therefore became…”
Island Fork Constr. v. Jimmy Bowling, 872 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2017). “The District Director, a Department of Labor employee responsible for processing claims, 20 C.F.R. § 725.418 (d), issued a Notice of Claim that-proposed designating Island Fork as the responsible operator.”
Cornett v. Benham Coal, Inc., 227 F.3d 569 (6th Cir. 2000). “Benham Coal claims that because the Director is an "adjudicator” under the BLBA but only a "mediator” (without the ability to bind the parties) under the LHWCA, the Director cannot now contradict the position of the district director. See Benham’s Motion to Strike at 10, 11, 16.”
Usx Corp. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 978 F.2d 656 (11th Cir. 1992). “20 C.F.R. § 725.418 . The decision of the Deputy Commissioner becomes final if there is no objection within thirty days.”
Elmer Robbins v. Cyprus Cumberland Coal Co. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 146 F.3d 425 (6th Cir. 1998). “The district director then issues a proposed decision- on the claim, see 20 C.F.R. § 725.418 , which the parties can then accept, request revision, or reject and request a hearing before an ALJ.”
Rockwood Cas. Ins. v. Dir., OWCP (10th Cir. 2019). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 725.418 (d). When it issues the PDO, the district director must “dismiss, as parties to the claim, all other potentially liable operators.”
Hobet Mining, Inc. v. DOWCP (4th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 725.418 . The proposed decision and order must “reflect the district director’s final designation of the responsible operator liable for the payment of benefits.”
Sextet Mining Corp. v. Mary Whitfield, 604 F. App'x 442 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “418(d) provided in relevant part: The proposed decision and order must reflect the district director’s final designation of the responsible operator hable for the payment of benefits.”
Show all 19 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.