Nowlin v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp.
| Decision Date | 12 August 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A.1:02 CV 51.,CIV.A.1:02 CV 51. |
| Citation | 331 F.Supp.2d 465 |
| Parties | Gloria L. NOWLIN, Plaintiff, v. EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORP., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
Robert F. Cohen, Jr., Cohen, Abate & Cohen, LC, Morgantown, WV, Counsel for the Plaintiff.
William S. Mattingly, Kathy L. Snyder, Jackson & Kelly PLLC, Morgantown, WV, Counsel for defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on (1) the motion of the defendant, Eastern Associated Coal Corporation ("Eastern"), to deny relief sought in assessment of a 20% penalty (Docket No. 25) and (2) the motion of plaintiff Gloria D. Nowlin ("Nowlin") for summary judgment (Docket No. 29). These motions are effectively cross-motions for summary judgment on the final remaining issue in this case, whether Eastern is obligated to pay Nowlin a twenty percent penalty on any or all of the benefits that Nowlin received from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund (the "Trust Fund"). On November 5, 2003, the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation for the United States Department of Labor (the "Director") filed an amicus curiae brief. The motions are fully briefed and ripe for review. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS-IN-PART and DENIES-IN-PART both motions.
On January 6, 1976, Malcolm Nowlin, a retired coal miner formerly employed by Eastern, filed a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (the "BLBA"), 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945. Mr. Nowlin was initially awarded benefits on May 1, 1980. Eastern appealed the award but, before the case was heard, Mr. Nowlin died on March 17, 1981. Following his death, on April 10, 1981, his widow, Gloria Nowlin ("Nowlin"), filed an application for black lung survivor's benefits. For the next twenty years, Nowlin's claim proceeded through a protracted series of appeals to the United States Department of Labor Benefits Review Board ("BRB"), and remands to Department of Labor administrative law judges ("ALJs"). In his amicus brief, the Director summarized the procedural history of the administrative claim with relevant dates, as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 4, 1981 District director awards benefits commencing January 1, 1976
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 14, 1986 ALJ awards benefits commencing October 1, 1975
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 26, 1990 BRB vacates and remands
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 28, 1991 ALJ reinstates award of benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 17, 1993 BRB vacates and remands
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 14, 1994 ALJ reinstates award of benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 31, 1995 BRB vacates and remands
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 10, 1996 ALJ reinstates award of benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
August 14, 1997 BRB vacates and remands
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 16, 1998 BRB denied Director's motion for reconsideration and clarification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 14, 1999 ALJ reinstates award of benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 22, 2000 BRB affirms award
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 14, 1999, on a fourth remand, the ALJ awarded Nowlin benefits retroactive to May 1, 1976. Eastern appealed that decision to the BRB. This time, however, the BRB affirmed the ALJ's award of benefits.1 Neither party filed an appeal or requested reconsideration.
Nowlin was first awarded benefits by the district director in 1981. That award included monies due from the time of Mr. Nowlin's January 1976 filing for benefits. Nevertheless, except for a brief period between October 1, 1991 through July 7, 1993, Eastern declined to pay benefits while it pursued its appeals. Therefore, the Black Lung Benefits Trust Fund (the "Trust Fund") began paying benefits to Nowlin. She received a total of $127,322.40 in benefits that "were not paid directly by Eastern." (Stip. of Fact ¶ 4.) Following a final decision on the underlying BLBA claim, in December, 2000, Eastern reimbursed $126,904.20 to the Trust Fund, (Stip. of Fact ¶ 1), and began paying benefits directly to Nowlin.
On April 1, 2002, Nowlin filed the instant action seeking to recover an additional twenty percent (20%) of the amount of benefits Eastern refused to pay her during the pendency of her claim. The 20% penalty assessment arises automatically under 33 U.S.C. § 914(f) when an employer is untimely in its payment of benefits awarded by an ALJ. 33 U.S.C. § 914(f). Section 914(f), however, does not provide a means to enforce the penalty award and, consequently, Nowlin brings this action under 33 U.S.C. § 921(d).2 As reflected in the motions before the Court, the penalty provision is implemented through 20 C.F.R. § 725.607.
A moving party is entitled to summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).
In considering a motion for summary judgment, the court is required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The moving party has the burden of initially showing the absence of a genuine issue concerning any material fact. Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 159, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). Once the moving party has met its initial burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to "establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). To discharge this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rely on its pleadings but instead must have evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548.
"The BLBA established a comprehensive scheme designed to compensate miners for medical problems and disabilities related to pneumoconiosis." Kinder v. Coleman & Yates Coal Co., 974 F.Supp. 868, 870 (W.D.Va.1997) (citing 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945). It incorporates significant portions of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act ("LHWCA"), including the provision assessing a twenty percent penalty for failure to timely pay compensation, 33 U.S.C. § 914(f). See 30 U.S.C. § 932(a) (); see also Donovan v. McKee, 669 F.Supp. 138, 140 (S.D.W.Va.1987) ().
The BLBA further confers on the Secretary of Labor (the "Secretary") the authority and discretion to vary the provisions of the LHWCA to accommodate the needs of the black lung compensation program. See 30 U.S.C. § 932(a); Director, OWCP v. Nat'l Mines Corp., 554 F.2d 1267, 1274 (4th Cir.1977). Using this authority, the Secretary has promulgated 20 C.F.R. § 725.607 to implement 33 U.S.C. § 914(f). Section 725.607(a) establishes a mandatory twenty percent penalty to be assessed on operators who do not timely comply with an effective order to pay benefits. It provides in pertinent part:
(a) If any benefits payable under the terms of ... a decision and order filed and served by an administrative law judge ... are not paid by an operator or other employer ordered to make such payments within 10 days after such payments become due, there shall be added to such unpaid benefits an amount equal to 20 percent thereof ... unless review of the order making such award is sought as provided in section 21 of the LHWCA and an order staying payments has been issued.
20 C.F.R. § 725.607(a). The regulation further states that a claimant eligible to receive a penalty payment under (a) will receive it even if benefit payments were timely made by the Trust Fund. 20 C.F.R. § 725.607(b).3 Finally, it provides that "[t]he fund shall not be liable for payments in addition to compensation under any circumstances." 20 C.F.R. § 725.607(c).
This case raises the following questions:
1. Is the Director's interpretation of the BLBA and its implementing regulations entitled to the Court's deference in this case?
2. Were benefits timely paid pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 725.607?
3. Which benefits paid by the Trust Fund are "unpaid benefits" under 20 C.F.R. § 725.607?
4. Does 20 C.F.R. § 725.607 creates an obligation for an employer to pay a twenty percent penalty notwithstanding that the claimant received benefits from the Trust Fund in a timely manner? and
5. Is 20 C.F.R. § 725.607 valid as "reasonably related" to the Black Lung Benefit's Act's purpose?
The Court will address the questions seriatim.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thacker ex rel. Estate v. Old Republic Ins. Co.
...Ridge Coal Co. , LLC, No. CIV.A. 2:11-00248, 2012 WL 386736, at *6 (S.D.W. Va. Feb. 6, 2012) ; Nowlin v. E. Associated Coal Corp. , 331 F. Supp. 2d 465, 468 (N.D.W. Va. 2004) (" Nowlin II ").Here, the June 13, 2016 order was filed in the office of the District Director on August 1, 2016, ma......
-
Byrge ex rel. Estate v. Premium Coal Co.
...designed to compensate miners for medical problems and disabilities related to pneumoconiosis." Nowlin v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp. , 331 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (N.D. W. Va. 2004) (quoting Kinder v. Coleman & Yates Coal Co. , 974 F.Supp. 868, 870 (W.D. Va. 1997) ) (other citations omitted).......
-
Hudson v. Pine Ridge Coal Co.
...penalty was not intended to apply whenever the Trust Fund makes payments on an operator's behalf." Nowlin v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., 331 F.Supp.2d 465, 474 (N.D. W. Va. 2004). Pine Ridge has not challenged the validity of this dispositive regulation. Nor could it: the law imposes a "......
-
Templeton v. Appolo Fuels, Inc.
...is untimely in its payment of benefits awarded by an ALJ." Thacker , 416 F. Supp.3d at 663 (quoting Nowlin v. E. Associated Coal Corp. , 331 F. Supp. 2d 465, 468 (N.D.W. Va. 2004) ).15 In Thacker , the "district director issued a computation of benefits payable on August 17, 2016. The benef......