29 C.F.R. § 2700.69

Decision of the ALJ

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

(a) Form and content of the ALJ's decision. The ALJ shall make a decision that constitutes a final disposition of the proceedings. The decision shall be in writing and shall include all findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the reasons or bases for them, on all the material issues of fact, law or discretion presented by the record, and an order. If a decision is announced orally from the bench, it shall be reduced to writing after the filing of the transcript. An order by an ALJ approving a settlement proposal is a decision of the ALJ.

(b) Termination of the ALJ's jurisdiction. Except to the extent otherwise provided herein, the jurisdiction of the ALJ terminates when the ALJ's decision has been issued.

(c) Correction of clerical errors. At any time before the Commission has directed that an ALJ's decision be reviewed, and on the ALJ's own motion or the motion of a party, the ALJ may correct clerical errors in decisions, orders, or other parts of the record. After the Commission has directed that an ALJ's decision be reviewed, the ALJ may correct such errors with the leave of the Commission. If an ALJ's decision has become the final order of the Commission, the ALJ may correct such errors with the leave of the Commission. Neither the filing of a motion to correct a clerical error, nor the issuance of an order or amended decision correcting a clerical error, shall toll the time for filing a petition for discretionary review of the ALJ's decision on the merits.

(d) Effect of decision of the ALJ. A decision of an ALJ is not a precedent binding upon the Commission.

[90 FR 5625, Jan. 17, 2025]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 2012–2019 · leading case: North Fork Coal Corp. v. Fed. Mine Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 691 F.3d 735 (6th Cir. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

North Fork Coal Corp. v. Fed. Mine Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 691 F.3d 735 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “29 C.F.R. §§ 2700.69 , 2700.70. Parties aggrieved by the Commission’s final order may seek additional review in the federal courts of appeals.”

Big Ridge, Inc. v. Fed. Mine Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 715 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2013). “Nevertheless, we recognize that the ALJ gave serious consideration to the problem, and we can and should consider the merits of his reasoning. The reason that Sewell Coal is not persuasive is that the ALJ’s decision rested on constitutional avoidance grounds that are no longer…”

Black Beauty Coal Co. v. Fed. Mine Saf. & Health Review Comm'n, 703 F.3d 553 (D.C. Cir. 2012). “" 29 C.F.R. § 2700.69 (d). FMSHRC has not followed the Tenth Circuit's twenty-year-old dicta nor has any court, including the Tenth Circuit.”

Consol Pennsylvania Coal Co v. MSHR, 941 F.3d 95 (3rd Cir. 2019). “) That argument, however, gains no traction because, even if the historical assertion is accurate, the statute and regulation are unambiguous, and ALJ decisions neither bind the Commission nor qualify as agency precedent.”

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.