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. § 725.478

Filing and service of decision and order

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

On the date of issuance of a decision and order under § 725.477, the administrative law judge shall serve the decision and order on all parties to the claim by certified mail. On the same date, the original record of the claim shall be sent to the DCMWC in Washington, D.C. Upon receipt by the DCMWC, the decision and order shall be considered to be filed in the office of the district director, and shall become effective on that date.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Eugene Patton v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 763 F.2d 553 (3d Cir. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Eugene Patton v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 763 F.2d 553 (3d Cir. 1985). · cites it 6× “1 See 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.478 , 725.364; Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co.”
Jewell Smokeless Coal Corp. v. Melvin C. Looney Dir., 892 F.2d 366 (4th Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “, and the decision and order shall be considered to be *368 filed in the office of the deputy commissioner, 20 C.F.R. § 725.478 (1989). II. The factual premise of the BRB’s dismissal of Jewell’s appeal was that the appeal was filed more than thirty days after the ALJ’s decision…”
Robert Nealon v. California Stevedore & Ballast Co., 996 F.2d 966 (9th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “§ 939 (a) (Longshore Act). The Secretary’s regulation implementing the Black Lung Act requires that the ALJ serve the compensation order on the parties by certified mail and, on the same day, return the record of the claim to the Division of Coal Mine Worker’s Compensation.”
Avery C. Bennett v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 717 F.2d 1167 (7th Cir. 1983). “As required by 20 C.F.R. § 725.478 , he served the decision on the petitioner and his counsel on the same date.”
Ed Daugherty v. Dir., Off. of Workers Comp. Prog., United States Dep't of Labor, 897 F.2d 740 (4th Cir. 1990). · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 725.478 (emphasis added). Section 725.”
Dominion Coal Corp. v. Tommy Honaker Dir., 33 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “§ 919 (e) and by 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.478 , 725.479, and 802.205.”
Old Ben Coal Co. v. Ruby Jones, 897 F.2d 900 (7th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “1 20 C.F.R. § 725.478 provides; On the date of issuance of a decision and order under § 725.”
Trent Coal, Inc. v. William F. Day & Dir., 739 F.2d 116 (3d Cir. 1984). “” 20 C.F.R. § 725.478 (1980). Although the statute unambiguously provides that the appeal period begins to run when the order is filed with the deputy commissioner, the regulation is less precise.”
Charles M. Dawe v. Old Ben Coal Co. & Dir., 754 F.2d 225 (7th Cir. 1985). “The order of the AU is deemed to be filed with the Deputy Commissioner on the date that it is issued, 20 C.F.R. § 725.478 , and, in this case, the AU’s Decision and Order contained a statement that an appeal could be filed “within 30 days from the date of this Decision.”
Albert S. Rich v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 798 F.2d 432 (11th Cir. 1986). “§ 921 (a); 20 C.F.R. § 725.478 ; see Patton v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 763 F.”
Jeffboat, Inc. v. Robert Mann, 875 F.2d 660 (7th Cir. 1989). “20 C.F.R. § 725.478 (1978) (emphasis added).”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. Leslie Seals, 942 F.2d 986 (6th Cir. 1991). · cites it 4× “The Director argues that the Secretary of Labor’s regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 725.478 provides the date on which the AU’s decision is issued triggers the thirty-day appeal period.”
Show all 18 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.