Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/1772438/50/incorporating-42-U-S-C-%C2%A7-405-a-and-3-to-put-these
Timestamp: 2013-05-22 05:09:59
Document Index: 305081624

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 405', '§ 901', '§ 901', 'art, 20', 'art 718', 'art, 20', 'art 722', '§ 931', 'art, 20', 'art 725', 'art, 20', 'art 726', '§ 718', '§ 725', '§725', '§ 725', '§ 725', '§ 725', '§ 718', '§ 725', '§ 725', '§ 928', '§ 725', '§ 928', '§725', '§ 928', '§ 725', '§928', '§ 725', '§ 932', '§ 725', '§ 726', '§ 725', '§ 725', '§ 725', '§ 405', '§ 921', '§ 551', '§ 404', '§ 725', '§ 725', '§ 919', '§ 7', '§ 556', '§ 405', '§ 902', '§ 932', '§ 922', '§ 902', '§ 725', '§ 907', '§ 556', 'art 718', '§ 559']

(incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 405(a)); and (3) to put these for Department of Labor: 00 3086
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______________________________)NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION,)
,))Plaintiffs,))v. )Civ. No. 00-3086)(EGS)ELAINE L. CHAO,
,))Defendants.) ______________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs commenced this action for declaratory judgmentand injunctive relief and request this Court to enjoin theenforcement of final regulations issued by the defendants onDecember 20, 2000. The regulations are published at 65 FederalRegister 79920-80107 under Title IV of the Federal Coal MineHealth and Safety Act of 1969 as amended, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945,also known as the Black Lung Benefits Act(“BLBA”). The BLBAprovides benefits “to coal miners who are totally disabled due topneumoconiosis and to the surviving dependents of miners whosedeath was due to such disease.” 30 U.S.C. § 901(a).The subject regulations are organized into four principalparts. The first part, 20 C.F.R. Part 718, sets forth themedical proof necessary to establish entitlement to black lungbenefits. The second part, 20 C.F.R. Part 722, prescribescriteria for determining whether a state’s workers’ compensationprogram provides “adequate coverage,” 30 U.S.C.§ 931 (b), and
-2-therefore provides the exclusive means of black lung recovery forminers in that state. The third part, 20 C.F.R. Part 725, setsforth the procedures for adjudicating claims. And the fourthpart, 20 C.F.R. Part 726, establishes guidelines for theinsurance or self-insurance obligations imposed on coal mineoperators by the BLBA.Pending before the Court are plaintiffs’ motion for summaryjudgment and defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in thealternative, for summary judgment. Also pending is intervenors’motion for summary judgment, which does not support defendants’motion to dismiss, but does support defendants’ defense of thechallenged regulations. The defendants and intervenors have alsofiled motions to strike certain affidavits attached toplaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as outside theadministrative record. Plaintiffs have also filed a motion tovacate and remand the proceedings, based on plaintiffs’contention that the current administration does not support thepolicy choices behind the rules. Finally, the Coal MiningCompensation Rating Bureau of Pennsylvania filed a motion toappear as
. On June 18, 2001, the Court grantedplaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Voluntary Dismissal of Claims.Count I paragraph 23(q), Count V paragraph 40(r), and Count VIIIparagraph 52(f) of plaintiffs’ amended complaint were dismissedwithout prejudice. Additionally, plaintiffs’ did not provide anydiscussion or only cursory argument in their pleadings regardingseveral of the rules challenged in their amended complaint.
The rules that plaintiffs’ challenge in their Amended Complaintfor which they offer no argument are: § 718.301, § 725.101(a)(29), §725.101(a)(32), § 725.202, § 725.407, § 725.410. Plaintiffs alsoprovide cursory argument to support their claims that § 718.201creates an unlawful burden shifting presumption and denies a full andfair hearing, § 725.101(a)(31) is impermissibly retroactive, § 725.406violates 33 U.S.C. § 928, § 725.408 violates 33 U.S.C. § 928, §725.409 violates 33 U.S.C. § 928, §§ 725.411-418 violates 33 U.S.C. §928, § 725.607 violates 33 U.S.C. § 932, § 725.493 denies a full andfair hearing, § 726.8 denies a full and fair hearing, § 725.2 exceedsthe DOL’s statutory authority, § 725.103 is impermissibly retroactive,and § 725.409 denies a full and fair hearing.-3-Although plaintiffs’ argue that they have not abandoned anyclaims, those for which they provide only cursory argument aredeemed conceded.
See, e.g., Washington Legal Clinic for theHomeless v. Barry , 107 F.3d 32, 39 (D.C. Cir. 1997).Upon consideration of the pending motions, the points andauthorities in support of and in opposition thereto, thearguments of counsel, and for the reasons set forth herein, theCourt will
plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment anddefendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on jurisdictionalgrounds. Further, the Court will
intervenors’ anddefendants’ motions for summary judgment defending the challengedregulations.
Plaintiffs are the National Mining Association, the nationaltrade association for the U.S. mining industry, the Old RepublicInsurance Company, National Union Fire Insurance Company ofPittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and American Mining Insurance Company,commercial insurance carriers, the Ohio Valley Coal Company, an
SearchSearch History: Searching...Result 00 of 0000 results for result for p. (incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 405(a)); and (3) to put these for Department of Labor: 00 3086Download or PrintAdd To Collection963Reads0Readcasts2Embed ViewsThis is a private document.
Published byDepartment of LaborFollowSearchTIP Press Ctrl-F⌘F to search anywhere in the document.Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.See Premium PlansSectionsUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIARegister 79920-80107 under Title IV of the Federal Coal MineCompensation Rating Bureau of Pennsylvania filed a motion toAlthough plaintiffs’ argue that they have not abandoned anyCourt will DENY plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment andUnited States Department of Labor (“DOL”). The Secretary ofLabor is authorized by the BLBA to issue regulations governing1999) (Admin. Record Doc. No. 00345). The second notice revised(Admin. Record Doc. No. 00531). The DOL received 37 comments(statement of Sen. Williams)). It “affects a high percentage ofDirector and request a hearing before an Administrative Law JudgeAppeals for the circuit in which the injury occurred. 33 U.S.C(1994). Defendants argue that Thunder Basin holds that when itUnited States courts of appeals.” (emphasis added). 29 U.S.C. §D.C. Circuit recently reaffirmed the principle of law that theAPA provides a default standard of review where a statute does33 U.S.C. § 921. Although neither the BLBA nor the Longshore Act551(6) (emphasis added); “Rule” is defined as “the whole or aAPA § 551(4). The APA makes a sharp distinction between these(“[j]udicial deference to reasonable interpretations by an agencyL. Ed.2d 233 (1991) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 n.11). Thesection are paid directly to the claimant725.405. The schedule contains the designation of a responsible(per 20 C.F.R. § 404.508). It also provides for payment of non-Section § 725.309 applies only to claims submitted after theSection 725.209, setting forth when a claimant may receive725.701 (e). This statement codifies the DOL’s long standingF.3d at 233-34; Gen. Trucking Corp. v. Salyers, 175 F.3d at 324;Section 718.204(a), the "total disability" rule, which54979; 62 Fed. Reg. at 3344-45. See also Cross Mountain Coal CoSection 725.101 defines the term “benefits” as including725.101(a)(6). Section 725.406 implements the BLBA’s requirement725.406(c) (2000). The new rule simply makes §§ 725.101 and725.406(c) consistent. See 64 Fed. Reg. at 54982. This is not aSection 725.502 clarifies the dates on which benefits become1978. See Plaintiffs’ Brief at 13. Section 725.502, inSection 725.530 provides that a responsible operator is inSection 725.607 provides generally for the payment ofSection 725.608 provides generally for the payment of simpleSection 718.104 codifies judicial precedent recognizingSections 725.204 andSection 507 of the Federal Mine Safety Act commands that554) applicable to claims for benefits. 33 U.S.C. § 919(d)Section 5 of the APA incorporates §§ 7 and 8 of the APA (5Longshore Act (and the cross-referenced provisions in the APA)The Supreme Court did not find that a rule clearly intended to64 Fed. Reg. at 54980. Plaintiffs are precluded from raisingSection 725.495 authorizes the mine operator, once it has5 U.S.C. § 556(d) assigns the burden of proof. This rule is(incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 405(a)); and (3) to put theseSection 7(c) of the APA provides that, “[s]ubject toSection 19 of the Longshore Act provides that, “in accordance30 U.S.C. § 902(f) is the exclusive source for the DOL’s medicalDOL to issue regulations for the implementation andU.S.C. §§ 932(a) and 936(a) as “a broad grant of rulemakingBLBA are matters on which the courts are to defer to “the agency1990. Plaintiffs argue that the plain language of the BLBABLBA does not include this language for the SSA. PlaintiffsSSA provision in question is a “specific reference” in the BLBABLBA requires the payment of full benefits to any survivorF.3d 637, 642 (8th Cir. 1999) (holding 30 U.S.C. § 922(a)(2)725.219(d). The language of the BLBA supports the DOL’sU.S.C. § 902(g)(1) (“The term ‘child’ means a child or a step-Section § 725.366 provides the procedure for collectingDOL is specifically authorized to shift the costs of developing33 U.S.C. § 907(e) (emphasis added). The DOL admits that it hasCourt and the D.C. Circuit for determining whether agencyDOL’s evaluation of scientific data. When an agency evaluatesNIOSH in any meaningful way and that there is no evidence in theDOL’s science choices as arbitrary and capricious per se becauseThe DOL reasonably concluded that:NIOSH’s comments submitted during the rulemaking process (Admin(Admin. Record Doc. No. 00229). The DOL has recognized thatU.S.C. § 556(d) (emphasis added). This is what the DOL hasDOL from its normal burdens of proof. Section 725.408(a)(3)Section 725.495(b) makes clear that the DOL bears theSection 725.495 sets forth the criteria for determining theDirector bears the burden of establishing that the OWCP hasSection 725.465(b) provides that an ALJ may dismiss theDirector only when the District Director agrees to such aReg. 80004-05. The DOL observed that it was difficult to appealFund even though the ALJ’s determination of the responsibleSection 502.503 requires that for each miner’s claim, the ALJSections 725.530 and 725.607 provide that a claimant isSection 725.701(e) creates a rebuttable presumption that any324 (4th Cir. 1999). The DOL was persuaded by the Fourth579 (upholding a presumption as “common-sense”); Sec’y of Labor64 Fed. Reg. 55004. The DOL’s conclusion that it would be mostSection 718.205(c), the “hastening death” rule, states that718.205(c)(5). This rule reflects the DOL’s longstandingOther comments received by the DOL refuted the existence of aAppendix B to 20 C.F.R. Part 718) provide standards for persons5 U.S.C. § 559. Plaintiffs argue that the revised rules permitNo. 01016) was prepared by an economist to assist the DOL inRecord Doc. No. 01065). The DOL admits that two reports discuss(1987). “The fact that [the regulations] might operateFURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss isFURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ Motion for SummaryFURTHER ORDERED that intervenors’ Motion for SummaryFURTHER ORDERED that the Preliminary Injunction OrderFURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ and intervenors’ Motion toStrike Plaintiffs’ Affidavits is GRANTED. The Court will notFURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate andBureau of Pennsylvania’s Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae is___ ___
DATE EMMET G. SULLIVANInfo and RatingCategory:Uncategorized.Rating:Upload Date:01/27/2008Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialTags:LawlaborususaexecutivedolcabinetdepartmentoflaborLawlaborususaexecutivedolcabinetdepartmentoflabor(fewer)Free download or readfalse online for free.Flag for inappropriate contenthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/1772438/Department-of-Labor-00-308609/06/2012pdftextoriginal
More From This User6 p.Department of Labor: gprovsrev114Department of Labor2682 Reads121 p.Department of Labor: dst-aces-cps-v20040617Department of Labor2118 Reads121 p.Department of Labor: dst-aces-cps-v20040123Department of Labor1937 Reads91 p.Department of Labor: aces cpsDepartment of Labor3854 Reads36 p.Department of Labor: aces cpDepartment of Labor5376 Reads1 p.Department of Labor: yr spanish guideDepartment of Labor1476 Reads1 p.Department of Labor: yr english guideDepartment of Labor884 Reads1 p.Department of Labor: youthworkerDepartment of Labor877 Reads1 p.Department of Labor: stop2sticker6Department of Labor777 Reads1 p.Department of Labor: stop2stickerDepartment of Labor796 Reads1 p.Department of Labor: stop1sticker6Department of Labor732 Reads1 p.Department of Labor: stop1stickerDepartment of Labor687 Reads1 p.Department of Labor: forkliftstickerspanDepartment of Labor721 Reads1 p.Department of Labor: forkliftsticker6spanDepartment of Labor1371 Reads1 p.Department of Labor: forkliftsticker6Department of Labor653 Reads1 p.Department of Labor: forkliftstickerDepartment of Labor697 Reads2 p.Department of Labor: landscapingEtcSpanDepartment of Labor765 Reads2 p.Department of Labor: landscapingEtcDepartment of Labor754 Reads12 p.Department of Labor: YouthRulesBrochureSpDepartment of Labor732 Reads12 p.Department of Labor: YouthRulesBrochureDepartment of Labor788 Reads2 p.Department of Labor: bookmarkSpDepartment of Labor1399 Reads2 p.Department of Labor: bookmarkDepartment of Labor676 Reads3 p.Department of Labor: niosh letter finalDepartment of Labor743 Reads1 p.Department of Labor: rm1894Department of Labor729 Reads1 p.Department of Labor: YouthRules ChineseDepartment of Labor144 Reads