Administrative – Black Lung – Evidence – Disability — Rebuttal

Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. Owens (Lawyers Weekly No. 13-01-0786, 27 pp.) (Niemeyer, J.) No. 11-2418, July 31, 2013; On Petition for Review; 4^th Cir.

Holding: An administrative law judge did not improperly limit a coal mining company’s ability to rebut a presumption of black lung benefits for a claimant who had spent at least 15 years in an underground mine and had become totally disabled from breathing difficulties, and the 4^th Circuit affirms the award of benefits. Claimant Dallas Owens sought black lung benefits after nearly 30 years of coal mine employment. An administrative law judge found his claim triggered the rebuttable presumption for benefits under 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4), and that claimant’s former employer, Mingo Logan Coal Corporation, failed to rebut the presumption. The ALJ awarded benefits, and the Benefits Review Board affirmed. On appeal, Mingo Logan contends the ALJ and the board applied the wrong legal standard and erroneously limited it to the two methods the text of the statute, 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4), specifies are the only means by which the Secretary may rebut the presumption. Mingo Logan contends that limiting it to these two methods of rebuttal violated not only the clear language of § 921(c)(4), which makes the rebuttal limitations applicable to the Secretary, but also the Supreme Court’s holding in Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1 (1976). Both claimant and the Director of the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs argue that even though the statute does not, by its terms, limit employers to the two specified methods of rebuttal, logic does, and therefore the ALJ and the board articulated the correct legal standard. We do not reach Mingo Logan’s challenge to the standard announced by the board to rebut the § 921(c)(4) presumption of entitlement to benefits, because we conclude the ALJ did not in fact apply rebuttal limitations to Mingo Logan, and the board affirmed the ALJ’s analysis. While the board purported to subject the employer to the rebuttal methods applicable to the Secretary in § 921(c)(4), it concluded in substance that no aspect of the presumption was rebutted, affirming the ALJ’s finding that Mingo Logan failed to show that Owens had only mild pneumoconiosis that did not substantially contribute to his total disability. The ALJ sufficiently explained why she found X-ray evidence on the whole indicated Owens had pneumoconiosis and that substantial evidence supported that finding. Although Mingo Logan argues the ALJ incorrectly disregarded the opinions of its experts, the ALJ gave a number of reasons in support of her decision to accord less weight to those opinions. Because we also find that Mingo Logan’s other challenges to the ALJ’s factual findings lack merit, we affirm the board’s award of benefits. Petition for review denied. Concurrence Niemeyer, J.: I write this separate concurring opinion on my conviction that Mingo Logan’s challenge to the standard for rebutting the § 921(c)(4) presumption should have been addressed. I would hold that the rebuttal standard announced by the board was erroneous, as demonstrated by § 921(c)(4) and the Supreme Court holding in Usery.