Blog / Legal News and Product Recalls

Killing Coal or Killing Coal Miners: New Coal Dust Rule Issued by MSHA

blacklungminer2.jpg
The Mine Safety and Health Administration has finalized a regulation for how much coal dust coal miners can be exposed to while in coal mines. Reaction was swift to come from all quarters, with leaders like West Virginia Senator John Rockefeller saying the rule did not go far enough to protect our coal miners from black lung disease. The Senator said:

"While this is a big step forward, it is by no means the end of our fight to eradicate this scourge of coal miners," Rockefeller said. "And, just as important is our effort to provide healthcare and financial support to those who are already suffering. I'll do all I can to make sure these miners and their families get the benefits they need and so rightfully deserve."

But others had a decidedly different view, with one coal company claiming it would immediately sue to prevent the new regulation from going into effect. The company said that "this rule clearly seeks to destroy the coal industry, and the thousands of jobs that it provides, with absolutely no benefit to the health or safety of miners, whatsoever." How can we know what to believe when a comprehensive rule making process, including input from all sides and reflecting the views of top doctors and scientists, is pitted against expert industry groups, with each side saying exactly the opposite thing about what's going on? Well, consulting history is one way to start. First of all, it's important to know what we're talking about when we talk about black lung. The Gazette recently explained the disease in plain English:

"Black lung, or coal workers' pneumoconiosis, is actually a collection of debilitating and potentially fatal ailments caused by breathing coal dust. Miners inhale tiny dust particles that are released into the air by coal-cutting machines. As the dust collects over time, lungs become black, scarred and shriveled. Miners often develop a cough, or shortness of breath. Frequently, as the most serious and fatal forms of the disease progress, miners have to fight for every breath."

Over 75,000 coal miners have died from black lung since 1968. The coal dust rules have not been changed in almost thirty years. In that time, as West Virginians know, the mines have become ever more heavily mechanized, with more machines and fewer miners in the ground, as companies try to mine more efficiently and profitably. But the better and faster the machines, the more coal dust there is in the mines and the finer the particles are - smaller particles can get around and through filters more easily. Moreover, the deaths of so many miners has allowed doctors to extensively study the disease and its causes - a somewhat sickening byproduct of the huge number of cases. In fact, some university doctors focus their whole careers on the causes and treatment of the disease. One such doctor, Robert Cohen of the University of Illinois, lauded the new rules, calling it a "huge step forward." But at the same time, some are attacking the rule, saying that the coal dust levels prescribed "cannot be achieved by existing technology." And it's reasonable to think that industry sources would know what they are and aren't capable of. So are we improving conditions for miners, or "killing jobs?" Again, to understand the industry stance, you have to look at history. In 1968, in Farmington, West Virginia, the No. 9 coal mine exploded, killing 78 miners. The bodies of 19 of those miners have never been recovered. The disaster sparked national outrage and a movement to establish some basic regulations of coal dust in the mines, to protect miners from such death and destruction. A recent book published about No. 9 explained the coal industry reaction to the desire of the widows and the lawmakers to rein in the company practices that led to the explosion:

The coal industry wanted no regulation. Coal companies did not want to pay for equipment to measure dust levels or adopt new practices that would minimize dust. Cloyd D. McDowell, president of the Harlan County, Kentucky, Coal Operators' Association, argued that a lung specialist from Great Britain had told doctors at a UMW hospital in his state that breathing coal dust alone would not cause black lung disease. 'Coal dust per se may or may not be harmful to the health of miners'" 'arbitrary.'"

No. 9 at 130-31. Of course, coal dust is the direct cause of black lung, and Mr. McDowell and his English doctor friend were much more concerned about the health of coal company profits than they were about the health of coal miners. Another coal company executive named James Garvey proposed "more studies" and claimed also that there was no proof that coal dust being breathed, day-in and day-out by miners, was the cause of black lung. And even a West Virginia Senator, Randolph Jennings, who had always catered to the coal industry's needs, questioned whether the Congress would pass any regulation of coal dust at all. He was worried about the "economic effect" on coal companies. So what we learn from history is that it repeats itself. No matter what scientists or doctors propose to protect the health and safety of coal miners, the industry is always against it, whatever the regulation happens to say. The quotations in the paper today from coal companies and their patrons in government could be exchanged word for word with what they said in 1968 - "too expensive," "not feasible." This was their position in 1968 when mass deaths from black lung and mine explosions were occurring and it remains true in 2014. The experience is not unique to coal. Not all that long ago in our nation's history, industry said that asbestos was safe, tobacco was healthy, and that seatbelts were dangerous. As Upton Sinclair said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Mesothelioma, lung cancer, and thousands of roadway deaths taught us that industry was not telling us the truth. Labor Secretary Tom Perez had a good response to coal company claims that the issue requires more "study". As he said, "We have, quite literally, studied the issue to death. ... We have the tools to prevent this devastating disease. Now it's time to muster the will to do it." The time to act has indeed come for the people of this state and this country, but history tells us that for some, the time to do better for our miners never comes. It's always around the corner, past the next industry study, or after industry has sued the government to void the rules. So we can be glad that, however haltingly, however belatedly, MSHA took some action to make our miners safer. Now that the rule is final, the companies can put some of the ingenuity they put into squeezing out profits into squeezing some more coal dust out of the air our coal miners have to breathe to bring coal up to us from underground.
Posted in:

Related Posts

Hospital sign pointing to the Emergency Room and Main Entrance outside a medical building

$3.77 Million in Medical Malpractice Case Against Wheeling Doctor and PA

WHEELING, WV / PITTSBURGH, PA — An Ohio County, West Virginia jury has returned a $3.77 Million verdict in a medical malpractice case against a doctor and a physician’s assistant at WVU Medicine Wheeling Hospital. Following a four-day trial, the jury found both Dr. Barry Mitchell and Physician’s Assistant Michelle Porembka negligent in their medical care of 64 year old Julie Daley when she presented with abdominal complaints at the Wheeling Hospital emergency room in June 2022. As a result of the medical care providers’ failure to timely and properly treat her condition, Daley ultimately sustained a perforated colon along with necrosis which ultimately lead to her needing to have a permanent colostomy. The jury found that the conduct of both Mitchell and Poermbka fell below the standard of care for medical care providers in their field and that their negligence proximately caused injuries and damages to Mrs. Daley.  Daley was represented at trial by Geoff Brown and Tyler Smith of the Wheeling law firm of Bordas & Bordas. Following the verdict, Smith commented, “We are pleased that the jury recognized that this should not have happened to Julie Daley and that they compensated her for the life-long effects that she will have as a result of the negligence of the medical providers.” Mark Robinson and David Givens of Flaherty, Sensabaugh, and Bonasso represented the medical providers at trial.  Circuit Court Judge Jason Cuomo presided over the case. Brown stated “Our practice is based upon fighting for justice for people who have been injured or wronged by others.  Helping others is at the root of everything that we do and we are glad that we were able to help Julie and her family obtain a measure of justice through this case and this result.” About Bordas & Bordas Founded in 1985, Bordas & Bordas Attorneys PLLC has earned a reputation as one of the region’s premier personal injury and plaintiff litigation law firms. With offices in Wheeling and Moundsville, West Virginia; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and St. Clairsville, Ohio, the firm represents clients in cases involving automobile and trucking accidents, medical malpractice, workplace injuries, nursing home negligence, product liability, wrongful death, insurance bad faith, and more. The firm operates on a contingency fee basis (clients pay only if there is a recovery) and offers free initial consultations. Rooted in its core values of experience, family, community, and results, Bordas & Bordas continues to stand as a trusted advocate for individuals and families across the Ohio Valley and beyond. Visit www.bordaslaw.com for more information.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Analyzes the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Analyzes the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The Pennsylvania Superior Court Analyzes the Federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act in Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Boyle v. Meyer, 2025 PA Super 198 (September 9, 2025), the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied a physical therapy company’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the immunity provisions contained in the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act). Background of the Case Plaintiff Boyle required physical therapy following open-heart surgery. To minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19, he arranged for OSPTA Home Care to provide in-home services. On November 8, 2020, physical therapist Meyer arrived without gloves, a face shield, or a proper mask — only wearing a thin, disposable surgical mask. Meyer also shook Boyle’s hand without gloves, did not wash her hands before treatment, and performed therapy as usual. Days later, OSPTA informed Boyle that Meyer had tested positive for COVID-19. Boyle soon developed symptoms, was hospitalized for ten days, and continued to suffer complications five months later. Boyle sued OSPTA and Meyer, alleging: Meyer was negligent in failing to wear proper personal protective equipment (PPE). Meyer exposed him to unreasonable risk and performed therapy despite known exposure. OSPTA failed to properly train and supervise Meyer and implement safeguards to prevent the virus’s spread. Defendants’ Motion and PREP Act Defense In response, Defendants admitted Meyer was not wearing gloves or a face shield but stated she wore a surgical mask and used hand sanitizer earlier in the day. They argued they were immune from liability under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 247d-6d, 247d-6e. Defendants asserted that they met all four requirements for immunity: Public health emergency – The COVID-19 pandemic triggered PREP Act protections. Covered persons – They qualified as both “program planners” and “qualified persons” under the Act. Covered countermeasure – Meyer’s “thin, disposable surgical mask” was a device authorized for emergency use by the FDA. Causal relationship – Meyer’s use of the mask had a causal connection to Boyle’s COVID-19 claim. The trial court denied their motion for judgment on the pleadings. Superior Court’s Analysis On appeal, the Superior Court found several factual disputes that prevented judgment for the Defendants. Specifically: It was unclear whether Meyer’s surgical mask qualified as a “covered countermeasure.” The pleadings did not conclusively establish that the Defendants were “covered persons.” Even if both were true, PREP Act immunity applies only to the use or administration of a covered countermeasure — not to its non-use. Citing Hampton v. California, 83 F.4th 754 (9th Cir. 2023), the Court noted that the PREP Act shields defendants from claims related to administering a covered measure, but not from claims alleging failure to administer one. Because Boyle’s complaint focused on the failure to use proper PPE, inadequate screening, and lack of training, his claims fell outside the scope of federal immunity. Conclusion The Superior Court concluded that the PREP Act did not preempt Boyle’s state-law negligence claims, affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The full opinion in Boyle v. Meyer, 2025 PA Super 198 (September 9, 2025), is available on the Pennsylvania Judiciary website. To learn more about legal issues surrounding immunity and negligence in Pennsylvania courts, visit our post on how the PA Superior Court reviews evidentiary challenges in medical cases.

Lead Risk Prompts Nationwide Recall of Ground Cinnamon

Lead Risk Prompts Nationwide Recall of Ground Cinnamon

Lead Risk Prompts Nationwide Recall of Ground Cinnamon The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a nationwide recall of 12 ground cinnamon brands after testing revealed elevated levels of lead. Roughly 21,690 units were sold through retailers like Dollar Tree and Save-A-Lot before being pulled from shelves. Consumers are urged to immediately throw away any affected products and avoid purchasing them until further notice. See the official FDA recall notice. Why This Recall Matters Although no injuries have been reported yet, the FDA warns that prolonged consumption of contaminated cinnamon can cause lead accumulation in the body. Children are especially at risk, since lead exposure can impact neurological development. Cinnamon is often used in foods like cereals, baked goods, and snack mixes — staples in many households with kids. This makes the recall a major public health concern for families nationwide, including those in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. FDA’s Broader Effort This recall is part of a larger FDA initiative to monitor imported spices more closely. Several cinnamon brands have been flagged in prior alerts, and surveillance is ongoing. For example: The FDA recently added Asli brand ground cinnamon to the list of affected products after new testing revealed unsafe lead levels. Additional products may be named as investigations continue. See the expanded FDA alert. What You Should Do If you purchased ground cinnamon recently: Check your spice cabinet against the recall list. Dispose of any recalled products immediately. Do not repurchase affected brands until the FDA clears them. If you suspect your child or another family member has been exposed, consult a healthcare provider for guidance. For ongoing updates, visit the FDA’s cinnamon recall page. Protecting Consumers This recall is a reminder that product safety issues extend beyond toys, appliances, and vehicles — even everyday food staples can carry risks. Families in WV, OH, and PA should stay informed about recalls and understand their rights if a defective or dangerous product causes harm. At Bordas & Bordas, our attorneys help consumers hold corporations accountable when safety takes a backseat to profit.