30 U.S.C. § 945

Repealed. Pub. L. 107–275, § 2(c)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1926

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

[repealed]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case: Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben
Pittston Coal Group v. Sebben (1988) scotus · cites it 8× “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 .”
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Quarto Mining Company Elba F. B (1990) ca6 · cites it 6× “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 and George New v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor (1988) ca11 · cites it 15× “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.”
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Adam L. Goudy Benefits Review B (1985) ca6 · cites it 7× “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., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare (1980) ca6 · cites it 3× “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. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labo (1987) ca7 · cites it 3× “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 Company v. Elmer H. Luker and the Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, and United States Dep (1987) ca7 · cites it 2× “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. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor (1986) ca6 · cites it 2× “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. Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs (1983) ca3 · cites it 8× “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. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, and John (1990) ca3 · cites it 4× “See 30 U.S.C. § 945 ; Halon v. Director, 713 F.”
Joseph F. Markus v. Old Ben Coal Company and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Departmen (1983) ca7 · cites it 2× “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. Group Health Association, Inc. (1992) cadc “§ 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.