20 C.F.R. § 725.419

Response to proposed decision and order

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

(a) Within 30 days after the date of issuance of a proposed decision and order, any party may, in writing, request a revision of the proposed decision and order or a hearing. If a hearing is requested, the district director shall refer the claim to the Office of Administrative Law Judges (see § 725.421).

(b) Any response made by a party to a proposed decision and order shall specify the findings and conclusions with which the responding party disagrees, and shall be served on the district director and all other parties to the claim.

(c) If a timely request for revision of a proposed decision and order is made, the district director may amend the proposed decision and order, as circumstances require, and serve the revised proposed decision and order on all parties or take such other action as is appropriate. If a revised proposed decision and order is issued, each party to the claim shall have 30 days from the date of issuance of that revised proposed decision and order within which to request a hearing.

(d) If no response to a proposed decision and order is sent to the district director within the period described in paragraph (a) of this section, or if no response to a revised proposed decision and order is sent to the district director within the period described in paragraph (c) of this section, the proposed decision and order shall become a final decision and order, which is effective upon the expiration of the applicable 30-day period. Once a proposed decision and order or revised proposed decision and order becomes final and effective, all rights to further proceedings with respect to the claim shall be considered waived, except as provided in § 725.310.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · 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). “§ 919 (d); 20 C.F.R. § 725.419 (a). The judge typically holds a hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act’s adjudication rules, 5 U.”

Armand Pavesi v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 758 F.2d 956 (3rd Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 725.419 (a) (1984). See Brodka, supra, 643 F.”

K & R Contractors, LLC v. Michael Keene, 86 F.4th 135 (4th Cir. 2023). “20 C.F.R. §§ 725.419 , 725.421, 725.451. With some exceptions, these hearings are conducted in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.”

Edmonds v. Illinois Workers'Comp., 968 N.E.2d 775 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 725.419 (2002). In this case, claimant concedes that he did not appeal the revised proposed decision and order issued on November 25, 2002.”

Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. Albert Brodka, 643 F.2d 159 (3rd Cir. 1981). “20 C.F.R. § 725.419 (1980). If the benefits will come from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund rather than from a responsible employer, Department of Labor lawyers will appear against the claimant which, in the event the deputy commissioner has recommended payment, pits those…”

Arlette Richardson, Widow of Stuart Richardson v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 94 F.3d 164 (4th Cir. 1996). “See 20 C.F.R. § 725.419 (1995). Shortly thereafter, proceeding pro se, Richardson filed a survivor’s claim, contending that she was entitled to benefits because her husband’s “death was due to pneumoco-niosis.”

Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. Ziegler Coal Co. & Hazel Wheeler, 853 F.2d 529 (7th Cir. 1988). “See 20 C.F.R. § 725.419 . By agreement of the parties, the proceeding before the AD was confined to determining whether Ziegler was a responsible operator for purposes of the Act.”

Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. Kaiser Steel Corp. & John W. Zupon, 860 F.2d 377 (10th Cir. 1988). “The AU’s denial of the motion to reconsider could have been appealed to the Benefits Review Board, see 20 C.F.R. § 725.”

Island Creek Coal Co. v. Arthur W. Holdman, (Deceased) Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 202 F.3d 873 (6th Cir. 2000). “310 , a procedure with attendant avenues for hearings and appeal in the event that a party is dissatisfied with the OWCP’s resolution of the petition, see 20 C.F.R. § 725.419 ), Island Creek filed with the Board a motion for reconsideration on December 4, 1996 (within thirty…”

Island Fork Constr. v. Jimmy Bowling, 872 F.3d 754 (6th Cir. 2017). “See 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.419 (a); 725.455(a). , At the hearing before the ALJ in December 2014, counsel informed the ALJ that both Island Fork and its insurer, Frontier Insurance, were insolvent.”

Premium Coal Co., Inc. v. OWCP, 619 F. App'x 447 (6th Cir. 2015). “20 C.F.R. § 725.419 . On March 23, 2010, Congress revived a rebuttable statutory presumption that a coal miner is presumed to be permanently disabled due to pneumoconiosis if such *449 miner worked in an underground coal mine for fifteen years and he suffers from total…”

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). “See 20 C.F.R. § 725.419 . Most importantly, “[i]n any claim for which a formal hearing is requested or ordered, .”

Show all 27 citing cases →

— 20 C.F.R. § 725.419(d) — 1 case

Lester v. Consolidation Coal Co. (S.D.W. Va 2023).

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.