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. § 725.463

Issues to be resolved at hearing; new issues

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

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the hearing shall be confined to those contested issues which have been identified by the district director (see § 725.421) or any other issue raised in writing before the district director.

(b) An administrative law judge may consider a new issue only if such issue was not reasonably ascertainable by the parties at the time the claim was before the district director. Such new issue may be raised upon application of any party, or upon an administrative law judge's own motion, with notice to all parties, at any time after a claim has been transmitted by the district director to the Office of Administrative Law Judges and prior to decision by an administrative law judge. If a new issue is raised, the administrative law judge may, in his or her discretion, either remand the case to the district director with instructions for further proceedings, hear and resolve the new issue, or refuse to consider such new issue.

(c) If a new issue is to be considered by the administrative law judge, a party may, upon request, be granted an appropriate continuance.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Rockwood Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 917 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rockwood Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 917 F.3d 1198 (10th Cir. 2019). · cites it 7× “If a new issue is raised, the administrative law judge may, in his or her discretion, either remand the case to the district director with instructions for further proceedings, *1207 hear and resolve the new issue, or refuse to consider such new issue.”
Joseph Zettler v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 886 F.2d 831 (7th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 725.463 (a). Under 20 C.F.R. § 725.”
Arkansas Coals, Inc. v. Albert Lawson, 739 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2014). “421) or any other issue raised in writing before the district director” 20 C.F.R. § 725.463 (a) (emphasis added).”
Am. Coal Co. & Energy Mut. Ins. Co. v. Benefits Review Bd., United States Dep't of Labor, 738 F.2d 387 (10th Cir. 1984). “” 20 C.F.R. § 725.463 (b). The AU has discretion to refuse to consider a new issue, id.”
Ken Lick Coal Co. v. OWCP, 129 F.4th 370 (6th Cir. 2025). · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 725.463 (a). It adds that the hearing before that judge generally “shall be confined” to these issues along with any other issues “raised in writing before the district director.”
Repub. Steel Corp. v. Mary G. Leonard & Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 635 F.2d 206 (3rd Cir. 1980). “151 (1978); permitted depositions or interrogatories, 20 C.F.R. § 725.463 (1978); provided for use of subpoenas, 20 C.”
Amax Coal Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, & Rosemary Oxendine, 892 F.2d 578 (7th Cir. 1989). “20 C.F.R. § 725.463 (b). *582 However, each of these provisions applies to the time before the AU makes a final decision; none grants authority to alter the statute and regulation which says that a decision and order “shall become effective” upon filing.”
Rockwood Cas. Ins. v. Dir., OWCP (10th Cir. 2019). · cites it 7× “20 C.F.R. § 725.463 (b) (emphasis added).”
Johnson v. Royal Coal Co., 326 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “The district director, pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 725.463 (a) (2002), prepared a list of issues contested by Royal, 1 and referred the case to the Office of Administrative Law Judges (“OALJ”).”
Lockworth, Inc. v. OWCP (6th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “See 20 C.F.R. § 725.463 . On that basis, the Board held that the operators’ Appointments Clause arguments came too late in the day.”
E. Associated v. DOWCP (4th Cir. 1998). “See 20 C.F.R. § 725.463 (a)(1997); Pothering v.”
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.