Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-94-01454/USCOURTS-caDC-94-01454-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Respondent
L & J Energy Company, Inc.
Petitioner
Secretary of Labor
Respondent

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1L & J challenges the ALJ's conclusion that it violated 30 C.F.R. §§ 77.1000, 77.1005(a),

77.1501(a) & (b), & 77.1713(a). 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued May 16, 1995 Decided June 6, 1995

No. 94-1454

L & J ENERGY COMPANY, INC.,

PETITIONER

v.

SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.,

RESPONDENTS

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

Henry Chajet argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner.

Colleen A. Geraghty, Attorney, Office of the Solicitor, United States Department of Labor, argued

the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was W. Christian Schumann, Counsel. Susan E.

Long, Counsel, Office of the Solicitor, and L. Joseph Ferrara, Counsel, Mine Safety and Health

Review Commission, entered appearances.

Before: HENDERSON, ROGERS and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

PERCURIAM : On February 5, 1991, two large rocks fell off the unexcavated face of the L &

J Germantown Mine, injuring one miner and killing another. The Secretary of Labor conducted an

investigationand filed a proposed penaltyassessment against petitioner, L&JEnergyCompany, Inc.,

alleging violations of Federal Mine Safety and Health Administration regulations based on L & J's

failure to comply with certain examination and upkeep requirements. After a hearing, an

Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") ofthe FederalMine Safetyand HealthReview Commission found

six violations, including five at issue in the instant petition for review, some of which required a

finding that the dangerous conditions existed on the mine wall on February 5.1Secretary of Labor

v. L & J Energy Company, Inc., 16 F.M.S.H.R.C. 424 (1994). Because darkness prevented the

USCA Case #94-1454 Document #133377 Filed: 06/30/1995 Page 1 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

2The Secretary's contention that L & J failed to preserve this issue for appeal is meritless. The

petition for discretionary review, which the Commission denied, states that "[t]he judge found L

& J liable only after completely disregarding the eyewitness testimony. The judge's action in this

regard was based upon an erroneous understanding of a stipulation entered into by the parties

regarding expert testimony." 

3The ALJ asserted:

In order for [the citations at issue here] to be sustained, it must be initially

determined whether it is more likely than not that these conditions existed the

previous day. In analyzing this issue, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, I rely

exclusively on an analysis of the opinions proffered by [the experts,] Wu and

Scovazzo. (emphasis added)

Id. at 441. 

Secretary's inspectors from examining the mine wall on February 5, the evidence against L & J

consisted primarily of photographs and witness descriptions of the wall's dangerous condition on

February 6 and expert testimony indicating that the dangerous conditions could not have arisen

overnight. Id. at 426-438.

L & J principally contendsthat the ALJ's mistaken interpretation of a stipulation between the

partiesled himto relyexclusivelyon the expert testimony and to ignore relevant eyewitnesstestimony

indicating that the dangerous conditions did not exist on February 5.2In his initial decision, the ALJ

evaluated the condition of the mine wall on February 5 based solely on the conflicting testimony of

the parties' experts.3Id. at 431, 441. Upon remand, the ALJ acknowledged that he had

misinterpreted the stipulation, but concluded, as the Secretary now maintains, that the error did not

affect his decision because he had "take[n] cognizance of, and discusse[d], the testimonyofwitnesses

other than [the experts], who had observed" the conditions of the mine. Secretary of Labor v. L &

J Energy Company, Inc., 16 F.M.S.H.R.C. 796, 796 (1994). The fact that the ALJ reviewed the

testimony of eyewitnesses in his findings of fact, however, is irrelevant because in his legal

conclusions he disclaimed reliance on anything but expert testimony. In addition, the Secretary's

attempt to salvage the ALJ's opinion by pointing to substantial evidence in support of his conclusions

is unavailing because this incorrectly assumes that the ALJ considered and balanced all of the

evidence in reaching his conclusions. See Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488

(1957).

USCA Case #94-1454 Document #133377 Filed: 06/30/1995 Page 2 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

4As the Supreme Court has observed, "direct evidence of a fact is not required. Circumstantial

evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct

evidence." Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364 U.S. 325, 330 (1960); see also United

States v. Fadayani, 28 F.3d 1236, 1239-40 (D.C. Cir. 1994). 

5

In view of the record evidence, L & J's challenge to the finding that L & J violated 30 C.F.R.

§ 77.1501(b) by failing to conduct and record "frequent" inspections during a period of freezing

and thawing weather conditions fails. The only recorded inspection on February 5 took place at

8:00 a.m.; although another miner testified that he had conducted "frequent" inspections, he did

not record the results. 16 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 447. Nonetheless, the Commission must revisit the §

77.1501(b) violation on remand because the ALJ based his conclusions on the fact that dangerous

conditions existed on February 5. Id.

Contrary to L & J's contentions, however, the fact that the eyewitnesses who observed the

wall on February 5 testified that the dangerous conditions did not exist prior to the accident did not

foreclose the ALJ from finding violations here.4Instead, if the Commission reaches the same result

on remand, it must simply explain why the eyewitnesstestimony is discredited or discounted in whole

or in part. Nor does Commission precedent preclude consideration of conditions on the day after an

accident as evidence of dangerous conditions when the accident occurred. While the Commission

has suggested that post-accident evidence should be viewed with caution because it may result from

the accident itself or reflect conditions that arose after the accident, the Commission has not

precluded the use of such evidence by finders of fact. See, e.g., Secretary of Labor v. ASARCO, 14

F.M.S.H.R.C. 941, 951 (1992); Secretary of Labor v. Malvern Minerals Co., 11 F.M.S.H.R.C.

2382, 2385 (ALJ 1989). Moreover, because an ALJ has substantial latitude in choosing between

conflicting expert testimony, see ASARCO, 14 F.M.S.H.R.C. at 949; Secretary of Labor v. Cyprus

Tonopah Mining Corp., 15 F.M.S.H.R.C. 367, 373 (1993), if the ALJ had provided an explanation

(other than the misconstrued stipulation) for disregarding the eyewitness testimony of the L & J

miners, the expert testimony alone could have constituted substantial evidence in support of the

conclusion.5See 30 U.S.C. § 816(a)(1); Chaney Creek Coal Corp. v. Federal Mine Safety &Health

Rev. Comm'm, 866 F.2d 1424, 1431 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

Accordingly, we remand the case to the Federal Mine Safety and HealthReview Commission

for a new determination based on the fullrecord. The Secretary has conceded that on remand, before

assessing a fine, the Commission should address each ofthe six statutory criteria for determining civil

USCA Case #94-1454 Document #133377 Filed: 06/30/1995 Page 3 of 4
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

penalties. See Secretary of Labor v. Sellersburg Stone Co., 5 F.M.S.H.R.C. 287, 292-93 (1983);

30 U.S.C. § 820(i).

USCA Case #94-1454 Document #133377 Filed: 06/30/1995 Page 4 of 4