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 G—Responsible Coal Mine Operators

20 C.F.R. § 725.492

Successor operator defined

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

(a) Any person who, on or after January 1, 1970, acquired a mine or mines, or substantially all of the assets thereof, from a prior operator, or acquired the coal mining business of such prior operator, or substantially all of the assets thereof, shall be considered a “successor operator” with respect to any miners previously employed by such prior operator.

(b) The following transactions shall also be deemed to create successor operator liability:

(1) If an operator ceases to exist by reason of a reorganization which involves a change in identity, form, or place of business or organization, however effected;

(2) If an operator ceases to exist by reason of a liquidation into a parent or successor corporation; or

(3) If an operator ceases to exist by reason of a sale of substantially all its assets, or as a result of merger, consolidation, or division.

(c) In any case in which a transaction specified in paragraph (b), or substantially similar to a transaction specified in paragraph (b), took place, the resulting entity shall be considered a “successor operator” with respect to any miners previously employed by such prior operator.

(d) This section shall not be construed to relieve a prior operator of any liability if such prior operator meets the conditions set forth in § 725.494. If the prior operator does not meet the conditions set forth in § 725.494, the following provisions shall apply:

(1) In any case in which a prior operator transferred a mine or mines, or substantially all of the assets thereof, to a successor operator, or sold its coal mining business or substantially all of the assets thereof, to a successor operator, and then ceased to exist within the terms of paragraph (b), the successor operator as identified in paragraph (a) shall be primarily liable for the payment of benefits to any miners previously employed by such prior operator.

(2) In any case in which a prior operator transferred mines, or substantially all of the assets thereof, to more than one successor operator, the successor operator that most recently acquired a mine or mines or assets from the prior operator shall be primarily liable for the payment of benefits to any miners previously employed by such prior operator.

(3) In any case in which a mine or mines, or substantially all the assets thereof, have been transferred more than once, the successor operator that most recently acquired such mine or mines or assets shall be primarily liable for the payment of benefits to any miners previously employed by the original prior operator. If the most recent successor operator does not meet the criteria for a potentially liable operator set forth in § 725.494, the next most recent successor operator shall be liable.

(e) An “acquisition,” for purposes of this section, shall include any transaction by which title to the mine or mines, or substantially all of the assets thereof, or the right to extract or prepare coal at such mine or mines, becomes vested in a person other than the prior operator.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: ARMCO, Inc. v. Martin, 277 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
ARMCO, Inc. v. Martin, 277 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2002). · cites it 12× “, is not the responsible operator as defined by 20 C.F.R. § 725.492 ." Armco therefore asserted that the next most recent employer, Chafe Mining, was the responsible operator.”
The Daniels Co., Inc. v. Freda Mitchell, Surviving Spouse of James Mitchell Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 479 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “20 C.F.R. § 725.492 (a) (2000). It is the Director’s burden to identify the responsible operator, see 20 C.”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. Consolidation Coal Co. & William Petracca, 884 F.2d 926 (6th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “§ 932 (c); 20 C.F.R. § 725.492 (a)(3). The term “miner” is defined in the Act as “.”
Piney Mountain Coal Co. v. Mays, 176 F.3d 753 (4th Cir. 1999). “Pursuant to this decision the District Director issued notices directing respondent Piney Mountain Coal Company, the “responsible operator” as defined at 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.492 and 725.493, to pay full widow’s benefits to both Shirley and Betty Mays.”
Amax Coal Co. v. Hershell C. Fagg & Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 865 F.2d 916 (7th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “Fagg was not a “miner” within the meaning of the statute at any time after December 31, 1969 and that Amax, therefore, could not be a “responsible operator” pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 725.492 . The AU denied Amax’s motion on June 11, 1985 reasoning that Mr.”
E. Associated Coal Corp. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor Pearl D. Scarbro, 220 F.3d 250 (4th Cir. 2000). “See 20 C.F.R. § 725.492 . Eastern Coal also agreed that Delbert Scarbro had pneumoconiosis and that he had 26 years of coal mine employment.”
George Pancake v. Amax Coal Co. & Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 858 F.2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1988). “AMAX does not dispute that it is the "responsible operator" under the Act, 20 C.F.R. § 725.492 , and as such is liable for any black lung benefits owed to George Pancake.”
Elliot Coal Mining Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 17 F.3d 616 (3rd Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. §§ 725.492 (a), (b) (1992) (emphasis added).”
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). “” 20 C.F.R. § 725.492 (c). The issue before the AD, and now before us, was whether Wheeler was a “miner” for purposes of the Act while working as an electrician in Ziegler’s electrical repair shop beginning in September of 1969.”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Trace Fork Coal Co., 67 F.3d 503 (4th Cir. 1995). · cites it 6× “We agree with the Board that the ALJ’s determination that the director failed to develop the evidence in this case, both regarding Vernon’s ability to pay benefits under 20 C.F.R. § 725.492 (a)(4)(iii), and regarding Arizona’s cancelled insurance, was supported by substantial…”
E. Associated Coal Corp. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs Franklin E. Patrick, 791 F.2d 1129 (4th Cir. 1986). “” See 20 C.F.R. § 725.492 (a)(2) (1985). We decline to address these issues because they do not affect the outcome of this case.”
Boyd & Stevenson Coal Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, 407 F.3d 663 (4th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “Slone benefits and designated Boyd & Stevenson as the responsible operator pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 725.492 (a)(4) (1999). The ALJ determined that because the evidence showed that Viking had been dissolved more than eleven years prior to the hearing and Roekwood had been…”
Show all 20 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.