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 H—Payment of Benefits

20 C.F.R. § 725.542

When waiver of adjustment or recovery may be applied

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

There shall be no adjustment or recovery of an overpayment in any case where an incorrect payment has been made with respect to an individual:

(a) Who is without fault, and where

(b) Adjustment or recovery would either:

(1) Defeat the purpose of title IV of the Act, or

(2) Be against equity and good conscience.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1984–1998 · leading case: Lelia Napier, Administratrix of the Estate of John Napier v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lelia Napier, Administratrix of the Estate of John Napier v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (1993) ca6 “" The administratrix' arguments were framed to fit 20 C.F.R. § 725.542 , which, tracking the language of 42 U.”
Youghiogheny & Ohio Coal Co. v. Benefits Review Board (1984) ca6 “20 C.F.R. § 725.542 (1983) provides: There shall be no adjustment or recovery of an overpayment in any case where an incorrect payment has been made with respect to an individual: (a) Who is without fault, and where (b) Adjustment or recovery would either: (1) Defeat the purpose…”
Frances Girard, Widow of Octave Girard v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department o (1993) ca10 “Girard does not point to, nor do we find any evidence in the record, that any effort has been made to recover these benefits. We refuse to speculate that such action will be taken or that the Director will fail to follow his own regulations in deciding whether to recover the…”
Indian Mountain v. DOWCP (1998) ca4 “See 20 C.F.R. § 725.542 (1997). Bolling appealed to the Board, which set aside the ALJ's order based on its finding that the ALJ lacked subject matter jurisdiction.”
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.