30 U.S.C. § 945
Repealed. Pub. L. 107–275, § 2(c)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1926
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case: Pittston Coal Grp. v. Sebben, 488 U.S. 105 (1988).
Pittston Coal Grp. v. Sebben, 488 U.S. 105 (1988). “30 U. S. C. § 945 . The nature of the interim standards was to be such that the "[c]riteria applied by the Secretary of Labor in the case of .”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. Quarto Mining Co. Elba F. Bellomy, 901 F.2d 532 (6th Cir. 1990). “At the hearing, Bellomy testified that he had not received any notice from the Social Security Administration regarding his right to have his previously denied claims reconsidered pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 945 . The hearing was conducted without the presence of a representative of…”
Henry Curse & George New v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 843 F.2d 456 (11th Cir. 1988). “30 U.S.C. § 945 (1982). Class C claims, which had been denied based on the most restric-five criteria of all, automatically received reconsideration.”
Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor v. Adam L. Goudy Benefits Review Bd., 777 F.2d 1122 (6th Cir. 1985). “e petitioner, Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor (DOL), seeks review of a decision of the Benefits Review Board precluding the Director from contesting a claim of benefits which was initially approved by the Department of…”
Golden L. Moore v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Sec'y of Health, Educ. & Welfare, 633 F.2d 727 (6th Cir. 1980). “103 (codified at 30 U.S.C. § 945 ). Any award of benefits under this review taking into account the 1977 amendments is limited to benefits for a period which begins no earlier than January 1, 1974.”
Opal Strike, Widow of Roy Strike v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 817 F.2d 395 (7th Cir. 1987). “Because the claim was pending at the time the 1977 Act was enacted, it was subject to review under 30 U.S.C. § 945 (b)(1). The ALJ concluded, however, that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the § 727.”
Old Ben Coal Co. v. Elmer H. Luker & the Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, & United States Dep't of Labor, 826 F.2d 688 (7th Cir. 1987). “These regulations provide that, for a denied Part B claim to be subject to transfer, the claimant must have requested timely review by filing an election card or other equivalent document with the SSA, in accordance with 30 U.S.C. § 945 (a), and the corresponding SSA regulation;…”
Glen Back v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 796 F.2d 169 (6th Cir. 1986). “30 U.S.C. § 945 (1982). The review was to be made under liberalized standards adopted in the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977.”
Halon v. Dir., Off. of Worker's Comp. Programs, 713 F.2d 21 (3rd Cir. 1983). “Section 15 of that Act added a provision, now found at 30 U.S.C. § 945 (Supp. V 1981), for review of pending and previously denied claims.”
Bethenergy Mines Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, & John C. Pauley, 890 F.2d 1295 (3rd Cir. 1990). “See 30 U.S.C. § 945 ; Halon v. Director, 713 F.”
Joseph F. Markus v. Old Ben Coal Co. & Dir., Off. of Workers' Comp. Programs, United States Dep't of Labor, 712 F.2d 322 (7th Cir. 1983). “Subsequently, a de novo hearing was held in May, 1980, before a Labor Department ALJ, to assess the evidence supporting the benefit claim, a procedure mandated under the Act, 30 U.S.C. § 945 , and its accompanying regulations.”
Alan F. Gersman v. Grp. Health Ass'n, Inc., 975 F.2d 886 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “§ 1439a (all monies deposited pursuant to the statute shall be available “retroactively as well as prospectively”); Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. § 945 (a)(1) & (c) (providing for processing of benefit claims “pending on, or denied on or before” the effective date and…”
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.