00-3222 Old Ben Coal Company v. OWCP, et al.

Listen to this article

“The ALJ, however, followed precisely this course. It is clear from the decision that the ALJ was influenced greatly by the fact that at least some of Old Ben’s evidentiary submissions could have been produced for the first hearing. According to ALJ Chapman, allowing reopening in these circumstances ‘would make mincemeat of any principles of finality’ and would ‘constitute[ ] piecemeal litigation and forum shopping at its worst.’ App. at 35. However, finality simply is not a paramount concern of the Act. Because the ALJ gave no credence to the statute’s preference for accuracy over finality, we must remand for application of the proper legal standard.”

“In making that determination, the ALJ will no doubt need to take into consideration many factors including the diligence of the parties, the number of times that the party has sought reopening, and the quality of the new evidence which the party wishes to submit. These and other factors deemed relevant by the ALJ in a particular case ought to be weighed not under an amorphous ‘interest of justice’ standard, but under the frequently articulated ‘justice under the Act’ standard, O’Keeffe, 404 U.S. at 255. This distinction is not simply one of semantics. The latter formulation cabins the discretion of the ALJ to keep in mind the basic determination of Congress that accuracy of determination is to be given great weight in all determinations under the Act.”

Reversed and remanded.

Petition for Review of a Decision and Order of the Benefits Review Board, United States Department of Labor, Ripple, J.