Connection lost
Server error
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act’s “burden of proof” provision refers to the burden of persuasion. Consequently, the Department of Labor’s “true doubt” rule, which awarded benefits to claimants when evidence was tied, was invalid as it improperly shifted this burden.
Legal Significance: The case established that § 7(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act allocates the ultimate burden of persuasion to the proponent of an order in formal adjudications, limiting agency discretion to shift this burden through procedural rules like the “true doubt” rule.
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The Department of Labor (DOL) applied a “true doubt” rule in adjudicating benefits claims under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA) and the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). This rule stipulated that if the evidence for and against a claim was equally balanced, the claimant would prevail, effectively placing the burden of persuasion on the party opposing the claim (the employer). In two consolidated cases, Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) relied on this rule to award benefits to claimants. The employers, Greenwich Collieries and Maher Terminals, challenged the awards. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the “true doubt” rule was inconsistent with § 7(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which states that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, the proponent of a rule or order has the burden of proof.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split and determine the meaning of “burden of proof” within the APA.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the term “burden of proof” in § 7(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act refer to the burden of persuasion, thereby invalidating the Department of Labor’s “true doubt” rule which shifts that burden away from the claimant?
Yes. The “true doubt” rule violates § 7(c) of the APA because Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat c
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the term “burden of proof” in § 7(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act refer to the burden of persuasion, thereby invalidating the Department of Labor’s “true doubt” rule which shifts that burden away from the claimant?
Conclusion
This decision clarifies a fundamental aspect of formal administrative adjudication, confirming that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
Legal Rule
Under § 7(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 556(d), Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ulla
Legal Analysis
The Court, in an opinion by Justice O'Connor, undertook a historical analysis Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Department of Labor’s “true doubt” rule, which grants benefits when