Aggregates Manager Digital Magazine
Issue link: http://read.dmtmag.com/i/316536
tractors under § 50.20 when a contract employee, under the supervision and control of the contractor, is injured. Dickenson appealed the judge's decision to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals where the judge's decision was upheld. The Fourth Cir- cuit focused on § 50.20(a) and concluded that any person or entity qualifying as an "operator" under this regulation was required to report within 10 days acci- dents or injuries occurring at the operator's mine by filing an MSHA Form 7000-1. The court found that Part 50 regu- lations include their own defi- nition of the term "operator" that is identical to the statu- tory definition, except that it does not expressly include "independent contractor" within the meaning of "operator." The court noted the judge was careful to limit his decision to cases where the independent contractor was not acting in a supervisory capacity, expressly leaving for another day the question of "the report- ing responsibility of mine operators and contractors under section 50.20 when an injury is sustained by a contract employee who is under the supervision and control of the contractor." The court then interpreted the plain language of § 50.20(a) to mean that any- one who qualifies as an "operator" under 30 C.F.R. § 50.20(a) must report every qualifying accident or injury via the filing of a Form 7000-1. The court con- cluded where there are two or more operators who are subject individually to the reporting requirement set forth in 30 C.F.R. § 50.20(a), every one of them must report every qualifying accident or injury. The court found the judge's decision was consistent with this language and stated it "will not disturb the decision of the judge." Presumably, the court upheld the limitation of this decision to the specific facts of this case — an opera- tor supervising a contract employee of a temporary employment agency. The court's rationale seems to support this interpretation when it stated "the wide- sweeping 'each operator' requirement precludes operators from shifting via private contract the duty to report accidents and injuries in their mines to independent contractors, such as Bates, that had no supervisory authority at the time of the accident or injury. Such shifting is undesirable in light of the fact that '[o]wner-operators are generally in continuous control of mine conditions' and more aware of the full circumstances surrounding a mining accident and also 'more likely to know the federal safety and health requirements.'" Thus, the practical effect of this decision may be to reinforce the concept that whoever is providing the supervision for a specific employee carries with it the duty to timely file Form 7000-1 in the event that an employee experiences a reportable injury. AM Image credit: Xufang / Shutterstock.com If a contract employee is working under the supervision of the mine operator, both the contractor and the mine operator should report the injury. ROCK LAW • 26