98 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 269,063 times 367 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
Bennett v. Spear
520 U.S. 154 (1997) Cited 3,710 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Final Biological Opinion has "legal consequences," even though the action agency is not legally obligated to accept the opinion's recommendations or conclusions, because the opinion "alter the legal regime to which the action agency is subject"
Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
387 U.S. 136 (1967) Cited 5,300 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiffs subject to a regulation had standing to challenge it even though the Attorney General had yet to "authorize criminal and seizure actions for violations of the statute"
National Park Hospitality Assn. v. Dept. of Interior
538 U.S. 803 (2003) Cited 1,014 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that although the question presented was purely legal and the rule constituted final action, further factual development would "significantly advance our ability to deal with the legal issues presented" so the matter was not ripe for judicial review
Weinberger v. Salfi
422 U.S. 749 (1975) Cited 2,765 times
Holding existence of a final decision made after a hearing is central to the grant of subject matter jurisdiction under § 405(g)
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company
561 U.S. 477 (2010) Cited 546 times 88 Legal Analyses
Holding unconstitutional tenure provisions protecting executive officer, but concluding "the existence of the Board does not violate the separation of powers"
Ohio Forestry Assn., Inc. v. Sierra Club
523 U.S. 726 (1998) Cited 733 times
Holding that a procedural dispute is ripe “at the time the [procedural] failure takes place”
McKart v. United States
395 U.S. 185 (1969) Cited 1,607 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that issue which involved statutory interpretation did not require exhaustion because it required no agency expertise, was not a matter of discretion, and would not have been aided by any additional administrative action
U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs v. Hawkes Co.
578 U.S. 590 (2016) Cited 299 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that parties "need not await enforcement proceedings before challenging final agency action where such proceedings carry the risk of serious criminal and civil penalties"
Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.
428 U.S. 1 (1976) Cited 927 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that black lung compensation scheme satisfied due process because it was a "rational measure to spread the costs of the employee's disabilities to those who have profited from the fruits of their labor"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 348,617 times 930 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 704 - Actions reviewable
5 U.S.C. § 704 Cited 4,276 times 31 Legal Analyses
Granting judicial review over " final agency action"
Section 901 - Short title
33 U.S.C. § 901 Cited 4,127 times 20 Legal Analyses
This chapter may be cited as "Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act." 33 U.S.C. § 901 Mar. 4, 1927, ch. 509, §1, 44 Stat. 1424; Pub. L. 98-426, §27(d)(1), Sept. 28, 1984, 98 Stat. 1654. EDITORIAL NOTES AMENDMENTS1984- Pub. L. 98-426 substituted "Longshore" for "Longshoremen's". STATUTORY NOTES AND RELATED SUBSIDIARIES EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1984 AMENDMENT Pub. L. 98-426, §28(a)-(g), Sept. 28, 1984, 98 Stat. 1655, provided that:"(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the amendments
Section 921 - Review of compensation orders
33 U.S.C. § 921 Cited 1,332 times
Setting standard of review that Benefits Review Board must apply to ALJ's findings
Section 901 - Congressional findings and declaration of purpose; short title
30 U.S.C. § 901 Cited 1,136 times 2 Legal Analyses
(a) Congress finds and declares that there are a significant number of coal miners living today who are totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis arising out of employment in one or more of the Nation's coal mines; that there are a number of survivors of coal miners whose deaths were due to this disease; and that few States provide benefits for death or disability due to this disease to coal miners or their surviving dependents. It is, therefore, the purpose of this subchapter to provide benefits, in
Section 554 - Adjudications
5 U.S.C. § 554 Cited 1,036 times 31 Legal Analyses
Granting authority to agencies to "issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty."
Section 932 - Failure to meet workmen's compensation requirements
30 U.S.C. § 932 Cited 448 times
Adopting parts of the Longshore Act "except as otherwise provided . . . by regulations of the Secretary [of Labor]"
Section 919 - Procedure in respect of claims
33 U.S.C. § 919 Cited 309 times
Providing for ALJs
Section 934 - "Fund" defined; liability of operators to United States for repayments to fund; procedures applicable; rate of interest
30 U.S.C. § 934 Cited 65 times
Allowing the Secretary to sue in district court to enforce a lien against an operator who fails to make payments to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund
Section 9501 - Black Lung Disability Trust Fund
26 U.S.C. § 9501 Cited 61 times
Appropriating revenues to Trust Fund
Section 725.202 - Miner defined; condition of entitlement, miner
20 C.F.R. § 725.202 Cited 79 times
Including total disability as a condition of entitlement
Section 802.301 - Scope of review
20 C.F.R. § 802.301 Cited 70 times
Stating that the Benefits Review Board "is not empowered to engage in a de novo proceeding" but must instead conduct a review for substantial evidence
Section 725.455 - Hearing procedures; generally
20 C.F.R. § 725.455 Cited 25 times
Applying 5 U.S.C. § 554 to black lung proceedings
Section 725.456 - Introduction of documentary evidence
20 C.F.R. § 725.456 Cited 23 times
Requiring a showing of good cause to admit late evidence and permitting the ALJ to choose between either excluding or remanding to the district director
Section 725.494 - Potentially liable operators
20 C.F.R. § 725.494 Cited 23 times
In 20 C.F.R. § 725.494(c)(2001), the Department of Labor states that an operator is a responsible operator only if the miner at issue "was employed by the operator... for a cumulative period of not less than one year.
Section 725.481 - Right to appeal to the Benefits Review Board
20 C.F.R. § 725.481 Cited 22 times
Any party dissatisfied with a decision and order issued by an administrative law judge may, before the decision and order becomes final (see § 725.479 ), appeal the decision and order to the Benefits Review Board. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Board. Proceedings before the Board shall be conducted in accordance with part 802 of this title. 20 C.F.R. §725.481
Section 725.419 - Response to proposed decision and order
20 C.F.R. § 725.419 Cited 21 times
(a) Within 30 days after the date of issuance of a proposed decision and order, any party may, in writing, request a revision of the proposed decision and order or a hearing. If a hearing is requested, the district director shall refer the claim to the Office of Administrative Law Judges (see § 725.421 ). (b) Any response made by a party to a proposed decision and order shall specify the findings and conclusions with which the responding party disagrees, and shall be served on the district director
Section 725.495 - Criteria for determining a responsible operator
20 C.F.R. § 725.495 Cited 21 times
Defining a "responsible operator" as "the potentially liable operator . . . that most recently employed the miner."
Section 725.502 - When benefit payments are due; manner of payment
20 C.F.R. § 725.502 Cited 17 times
Explaining that benefits become due after the issuance of an "effective order" and notwithstanding a motion to reconsider or an appeal, "except that benefits shall not be considered due where the payment of such benefits has been stayed by the Benefits Review Board or appropriate court"
Section 802.407 - Reconsideration of Board decisions
20 C.F.R. § 802.407 Cited 16 times
(a) Any party-in-interest may, within 30 days from the filing of a decision or non-interlocutory order by a panel or the Board pursuant to § 802.403(b) , request reconsideration of such decision by those members who rendered the decision. The panel of members who heard and decided the appeal will rule on the motion for reconsideration. If any member of the original panel is unavailable, the Chariman shall designate a new panel member. (b) Except as provided in § 801.301(d) , a party may, within 30

Arch Coal, Inc. v. Perez et al

98 Cited authorities

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

Holding that a Final Biological Opinion has "legal consequences," even though the action agency is not legally obligated to accept the opinion's recommendations or conclusions, because the opinion "alter the legal regime to which the action agency is subject"

Holding that plaintiffs subject to a regulation had standing to challenge it even though the Attorney General had yet to "authorize criminal and seizure actions for violations of the statute"

Holding that although the question presented was purely legal and the rule constituted final action, further factual development would "significantly advance our ability to deal with the legal issues presented" so the matter was not ripe for judicial review

Holding existence of a final decision made after a hearing is central to the grant of subject matter jurisdiction under § 405(g)

Holding unconstitutional tenure provisions protecting executive officer, but concluding "the existence of the Board does not violate the separation of powers"

Holding that a procedural dispute is ripe “at the time the [procedural] failure takes place”

Holding that issue which involved statutory interpretation did not require exhaustion because it required no agency expertise, was not a matter of discretion, and would not have been aided by any additional administrative action

Holding that parties "need not await enforcement proceedings before challenging final agency action where such proceedings carry the risk of serious criminal and civil penalties"

Holding that black lung compensation scheme satisfied due process because it was a "rational measure to spread the costs of the employee's disabilities to those who have profited from the fruits of their labor"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Granting judicial review over " final agency action"

Setting standard of review that Benefits Review Board must apply to ALJ's findings

Granting authority to agencies to "issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty."

Adopting parts of the Longshore Act "except as otherwise provided . . . by regulations of the Secretary [of Labor]"

Providing for ALJs

Allowing the Secretary to sue in district court to enforce a lien against an operator who fails to make payments to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund

Appropriating revenues to Trust Fund

Including total disability as a condition of entitlement

Stating that the Benefits Review Board "is not empowered to engage in a de novo proceeding" but must instead conduct a review for substantial evidence

Applying 5 U.S.C. § 554 to black lung proceedings

Requiring a showing of good cause to admit late evidence and permitting the ALJ to choose between either excluding or remanding to the district director

In 20 C.F.R. § 725.494(c)(2001), the Department of Labor states that an operator is a responsible operator only if the miner at issue "was employed by the operator... for a cumulative period of not less than one year.

Defining a "responsible operator" as "the potentially liable operator . . . that most recently employed the miner."

Explaining that benefits become due after the issuance of an "effective order" and notwithstanding a motion to reconsider or an appeal, "except that benefits shall not be considered due where the payment of such benefits has been stayed by the Benefits Review Board or appropriate court"