U.S. Code » Title 30 » Chapter CHAPTER 22— MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER IV— BLACK LUNG BENEFITS › Part Part C— Claims for Benefits After December 31, 1973

30 U.S.C. § 932a

Appointment of qualified individuals to hear and determine claims for benefits

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 30 CasesGoogle Scholar

Qualified individuals appointed by the Secretary of Labor may hear and determine claims for benefits under part B or part C of title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 11 See References in Text note below. [30 U.S.C. 921 et seq., 931 et seq.] and under section 415 of such Act [30 U.S.C. 925]. For purposes of this section, the term “qualified individual” means such an individual, regardless of whether that individual is a hearing examiner appointed under section 3105 of title 5. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to imply that there is or is not in effect any authority for such individuals to hear and determine such claims under any provision of law other than this section.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2023–2024 · leading case: K & R Contractors, LLC v. Michael Keene, 86 F.4th 135 (4th Cir. 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
K & R Contractors, LLC v. Michael Keene, 86 F.4th 135 (4th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “Although Congress briefly authorized non-ALJ adjudicators to hear black lung claims, see 30 U.S.C. § 932a, the Director identifies what he calls a “sunset provision” in the statute, pursuant to which the Secretary’s authority to appoint non-ALJ adjudicators in black lung cases…”
Apogee Coal Co. v. OWCP, 113 F.4th 751 (7th Cir. 2024). “See 30 U.S.C. § 932a; see also U.S. Dep’t of Labor v.”
Sun Valley Orchards, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Labor (D.N.J. 2023). “Thus, “[t]he President has broad executive power to order the Secretary of Labor to change DOL’s regulatory scheme and remove ALJs from the adjudicatory process under 30 U.S.C. § 932a.” Decker Coal Co. v. Pehringer, 8 F.”
Overstreet v. Lucid USA Inc. (D. Ariz. 2024). “(quoting 30 U.S.C. § 932a). So, because Congress had not 28 imposed ALJs on the Executive, but it chose to use ALJs, that choice “required the 1 President to accept a dual for-cause removal scheme, even if that means ‘restrain[ing] 2 himself in his dealings with subordinates.”
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.