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 F—Hearings

20 C.F.R. § 725.455

Hearing procedures; generally

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

(a) General. The purpose of any hearing conducted under this subpart shall be to resolve contested issues of fact or law. Except as provided in § 725.421(b)(8), any findings or determinations made with respect to a claim by a district director shall not be considered by the administrative law judge.

(b) Evidence. The administrative law judge shall at the hearing inquire fully into all matters at issue, and shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence, or by technical or formal rules of procedure, except as provided by 5 U.S.C. 554 and this subpart. The administrative law judge shall receive into evidence the testimony of the witnesses and parties, the evidence submitted to the Office of Administrative Law Judges by the district director under § 725.421, and such additional evidence as may be submitted in accordance with the provisions of this subpart. The administrative law judge may entertain the objections of any party to the evidence submitted under this section.

(c) Procedure. The conduct of the hearing and the order in which allegations and evidence shall be presented shall be within the discretion of the administrative law judge and shall afford the parties an opportunity for a fair hearing.

(d) Oral argument and written allegations. The parties, upon request, may be allowed a reasonable time for the presentation of oral argument at the hearing. Briefs or other written statements or allegations as to facts or law may be filed by any party with the permission of the administrative law judge. Copies of any brief or other written statement shall be filed with the administrative law judge and served on all parties by the submitting party.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Harlan Bell Coal Co. v. Dewey Lemar, 904 F.2d 1042 (6th Cir. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harlan Bell Coal Co. v. Dewey Lemar, 904 F.2d 1042 (6th Cir. 1990). · cites it 3× “”); 20 C.F.R. § 725.455 (c) (stating that the miner or the miner’s survivor and the employer shall be afforded “an opportunity for a fair hearing”).”
Arch Coal, Inc. v. Hugler, 242 F. Supp. 3d 13 (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 725.455 (a); Pyro Mining Co. v.”
Arch Coal, Inc. v. R. Alexander Acosta, 888 F.3d 493 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “" 20 C.F.R. § 725.455 (a)-(c) (2017). The ALJ's decision may be appealed to the Board, which is "authorized to hear and determine appeals raising a substantial question of law or fact.”
North Am. Coal Co. v. William C. Miller, 870 F.2d 948 (3d Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “” 20 C.F.R. § 725.455 (c). In 1938 the Supreme Court, in Morgan v.”
Consolidation Coal Co. v. Billy D. Williams Dir., 453 F.3d 609 (4th Cir. 2006). “” 20 C.F.R. § 725.455 . No statute or regulation, however, requires an administrative law judge to rule on discovery motions prior to the merits hearing.”
K & R Contractors, LLC v. Michael Keene, 86 F.4th 135 (4th Cir. 2023). “§ 556 (c); 20 C.F.R. § 725.455 . If no party appeals, the ALJ’s decision is final.”
Helen Hillibush v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 853 F.2d 197 (3d Cir. 1988). “See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.455 (b) and 725.477(b) (1987).”
Joseph J. Skukan v. Consolidation Coal Co. Dir., 993 F.2d 1228 (6th Cir. 1993). “20 C.F.R. § 725.455 (c) (1992); Amax, 892 at 581.”
Michael Evosevich v. Consolidation Coal Co. & Dir., 789 F.2d 1021 (3d Cir. 1986). “” 20 C.F.R. § 725.455 (b) (1985). These regulations are consistent with the scope of admissible evidence provided for by statute in another part of the Act, which states that “[i]n determining the validity of claims under this part, all relevant evidence shall be considered.”
Peabody Coal Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 718 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2013). “308 (c), and the ALJ was not “bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence,” 20 C.F.R. § 725.455 (b). Because the evidence establishes that Brigance’s claim was filed outside the limitations period, Peabody has met its burden.”
Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. James M. Henderson Dir., 939 F.2d 143 (4th Cir. 1991). “See also 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.455 (b) and 725.477(b). The APA provides in relevant part that A party is entitled to present his ease or defense by oral and documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true…”
Edmonds v. Illinois Workers'Comp., 2012 IL App (5th) 110118WC, 968 N.E.2d 775. “Claimant views the district director's role as investigative or administrative in nature rather than adjudicatory.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
20 C.F.R. § 725.455(b): 1 case
Energy West v. Bristow, No. 21-9569 (10th Cir. Sept. 27, 2022).
20 C.F.R. § 725.455(c): 2 cases
Glen Mullins v. Arch of West Virginia, Inc. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 106 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 1997).
Mullins v. Arch of WV Inc, No. 95-2844 (4th Cir. Feb. 10, 1997).
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.