[CITE: Peabody v. Dept. Of Natural Resources, 2 CADDNAR 40 (1985]
[VOLUME 2, PAGE 40]
Cause #: 84-226R
Caption: Peabody v. Dept. Of
Natural Resources
Administrative Law Judge: Szostek
Attorneys: Joest; Spicker, DAG
Date: February 8, 1985
ORDER
It
is adjudged and ordered, for Administrative Cause #84-226R and Notice of
Violation N40820-S-00011 only, that Petitioner's "Request for
Admissions," Item 1-6, . . .are admitted. It is
adjudged and ordered that Notice of Violation N40820-S-00011 is vacated.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
The Director is included in the definition of the word agency, as used in IC
4-22-1-2, and is duly empowered to conduct administrative hearings pursuant to
IC 4-22-1.
2.
The Director may, pursuant to IC 13-4.1-2-2(c), delegate all or any of his
powers and duties assigned to him in this article to other employees of the
Department.
3.
Steven J. Szostek is an employee of the Department.
4.
Peabody Coal Company is a company licensed to do business in Indiana, with an
address at 1314 Burch Drive, P.O. Box 4331, Evansville, Indiana 47711.
5.
In a petition filed with the Department on September 7, 1984, petitioner
requested administrative review of Notice of Violation N40820-S-00011.
6.
The Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, at Trial Rule 28 (F), make the discovery
provisions of Rules 26 through 37 applicable to this administrative hearing.
7. On
September 13, 1984, as allowed by Trail Rule 36, Petitioner filed a
"Request for Admissions."
8.
On November 16, 1984, the Respondent agreed to submit a response to
Petitioner's "Request for Admissions."
9.
Respondent filed its "Response to Request for Admissions" on January
7, 1985.
10.
Petitioner filed a "Motion for Summary Decision" on January 9, 1985.
11.
The Hearing Officer gave Respondent until January 18, 1985, to respond to
Petitioner's "Motion for Summary Decision."
12. Respondent
has failed to respond to Petitioner's "Motion for Summary Decision."
13.
Under the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, at Rule 36, a matter is admitted
and conclusively established, for a particular administrative cause, if a
response to a Request for Admissions is not timely filed.
14.
By Respondent's failure to a timely reply to Petitioner's "Request for
Admissions" and by Respondents failure to reply to Petitioner's
"Motion for Summary Decision," Respondent has agreed to the granting
of Petitioner's "Motion for Summary Decision."
15. In this particular administrative cause, and based upon
Respondent's admission of Petitioner's "Request for Admission”, item
6, the above Notice of Violation was written in error and should be vacated.