Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor, 83-1940

Citation748 F.2d 1426
Decision Date27 November 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83-1940,83-1940
PartiesKAISER STEEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and Jesse Sainz, Respondents.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)

Paul A. Kastler of Kastler Law Offices, Ltd., Raton, N.M., for petitioner.

Edward J. Scheunemann, Denver, Colo. and Allen H. Feldman, Washington, D.C. (Francis X. Lilly, Karen I. Ward and Heidi

Ann Lazar-Meyn, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., with them on brief), for respondents.

Before BARRETT and DOYLE, Circuit Judges, and BOHANON, Senior District Judge. *

BARRETT, Circuit Judge.

Kaiser Steel Corporation (Kaiser Steel) seeks judicial review in this Court of an order by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor, awarding disability benefits to Jesse Sainz, a former coal miner and employee of Kaiser Steel. The award was made pursuant to the Black Lung Benefits Act (the Act), 30 U.S.C. Secs. 901-945 (Supp. V 1981). The ALJ's decision was found to have been based on substantial evidence and was therefore affirmed by the Benefits Review Board, and Kaiser Steel now appeals to this Court. Jurisdiction is properly in this Court in accordance with 30 U.S.C. Sec. 932(a) (Supp. V 1981) (Black Lung Benefits Act), which incorporates the review provisions of 33 U.S.C. Sec. 921(c) (1976) (Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act).

Jesse Sainz was employed as an underground coal miner in New Mexico for twenty-eight years during which time he held a variety of jobs in various dusty environments. He sought early retirement at age 62 because he had experienced two choking episodes while working under hazardous conditions in the mines. He feared that continued employment in his condition might jeopardize his fellow miners' lives. He moved to Tampa, Florida, and filed a claim for benefits under the Act on October 24, 1978. Kaiser Steel contested the claim. The claim was forwarded to an ALJ for a formal hearing.

The medical evidence presented at that hearing was as follows:

X-rays

1. X-ray dated November 18, 1978, examined by Samo J. Dovgan, M.D.; showed P and S pulmonary opacities which are small both irregular and rounded having a 2/1 profusion as measured by the I.L.O./V.I.C.C. classification. (These results establish the presence of pneumoconiosis under 20 C.F.R. Sec. 410.428 (1984).)

2. X-ray dated July 23, 1979, examined by Charles Scoggin, M.D.; showed results consistent with coal workers' pneumoconiosis.

Ventilatory Test

1. Test date: November 17, 1978

Miner's height: 61"

FEV: 2.22 L

MVV: 76 L/M

Blood Gas Tests

1. Test date: November 18, 1978

PCO2 : 28.8 mm/HG

PO2 : 57 mm/HG

2. Test date: November 30, 1978

PCO2 : 29.8 mm/HG

PO2 : 60 mm/HG

3. Test date: July 23, 1979

PCO2 : 32 mm/HG

PO2 : 64 mm/HG

Medical Examinations and Reports

1. Dr. Keil examined claimant on November 17, 1978, at the request of the Department of Labor. The report diagnosed "chronic pulmonary disease, obstructive--with hypoxia at rest." The report stated that claimant can "function comfortably only with minimal exertion," and that this condition was related to dust exposure in claimant's coal mine employment. In Dr. Keil's testimony before the ALJ, he stated that his earlier opinion relating the claimant's condition to coal mine dust exposure was no longer correct. Because of his reading of the current medical literature, he now felt that simple coal workers' pneumoconiosis could never be disabling.

2. Dr. Scoggin examined claimant on July 23, 1979 at the request of Kaiser Steel. His report stated as follows: "... it is my conclusion that his chest radiogram is consistent with coal workers pneumoconiosis; however his pulmonary disability is most consistent with the diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease" (i.e., emphysema caused by cigarette smoking). In a later deposition, he stated that "simple coal workers' pneumoconiosis does not lead to respiratory impairment," and again, "simple coal workers pneumoconiosis is not a disabling disorder."

The ALJ found in this case that the "interim presumption" contained in the Department's regulations had been triggered. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 727.203 (1984). This presumption is that a person who has worked as a coal miner for at least ten years will be presumed to be totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis if any one of the following medical requirements is met: (1) An x-ray establishes the existence of pneumoconiosis, (2) ventilatory test results fall below certain numbers (for a miner's height of 67" or less, FEV must be equal to or less than 2.3, and MVV must be equal to or less than 92), (3) blood gas test results fall below certain numbers (for a PCO2 value of 30 or below, PO2 must be equal to or less than 70 mm/HG), or (4) other medical evidence, including the documented opinion of a physician exercising reasoned medical judgment, establishes the presence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 727.203(a)(1)-(4) (1984).

The ALJ found that Sainz was presumed totally disabled under all four parts of the "interim presumption." He then proceeded to determine whether Kaiser had successfully rebutted the "interim presumption" under part (b). Part (b) provides four different methods by which the presumption established in part (a) can be rebutted: (1) the evidence establishes that the individual is, in fact, doing his usual coal mine work or comparable and gainful work; or (2) in light of all relevant evidence it is established that the individual is able to do his usual coal mine work or comparable and gainful work, or (3) the evidence establishes that the total disability or death of the miner did not arise in whole or in part out of coal mine employment, or (4) the evidence establishes that the miner does not, or did not, have pneumoconiosis. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 727.203(b)(1)-(4) (1984).

The ALJ found that Kaiser Steel had not successfully rebutted the "interim presumption" under any of these methods. Kaiser Steel argued that the testimony of both doctors that pneumoconiosis was not disabling showed that Sainz' disability did not arise in whole or in part out of coal mine employment, therefore effecting a method three rebuttal. However, the ALJ rejected the doctors' opinions on this matter because they were hostile to the basic premise of the Act, namely that pneumoconiosis is a disabling disease. With the "interim presumption" thus triggered and unsuccessfully rebutted, the ALJ found Sainz to be disabled due to pneumoconiosis and accordingly awarded benefits.

Kaiser Steel now attacks the ALJ's ruling, raising three contentions on appeal: (1) the "interim presumption" was improperly invoked because the uncontradicted medical testimony in the case showed that Sainz was in fact not disabled due to pneumoconiosis, (2) whether or not it was properly invoked, the "interim presumption" was rebutted under both method two and method three, and (3) the portions of the "interim presumption" that allow a presumption of disability based on either X-ray results or blood gas test results (20 C.F.R. Sec. 707.203(a)(1) and (a)(3) (1984)) are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

In reviewing the factual findings of the ALJ that Kaiser Steel has challenged, our inquiry is limited to the question whether his findings were based on substantial evidence. If so, we must affirm his decision. American Coal Co. (Energy Mutual Insurance Co.) v. Benefits Review Board, 738 F.2d 387 at 391 (10th Cir. July 6, 1984), citing Peabody Coal Co. v. Benefits Review Board, 560 F.2d 797 (7th Cir.1977). The instant case thus contains two basic issues. First, were the ALJ's findings of fact based on substantial evidence? Second, are the "X-ray" and "blood gas" parts of the "interim presumption" (20 C.F.R. Sec. 727.203(a)(1) and (a)(3) (1984)) constitutional?

The "substantial evidence" standard has been defined by the United States Supreme Court as follows: "Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Consolidated Edison Co. v. N.L.R.B., 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 216-17, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938). This standard is less rigorous than the burden of proof at a jury trial. In reviewing the findings of the trier of fact, the court cannot reweigh the evidence, but may only inquire into the existence of evidence to support the trier of fact. Peabody Coal Co. v. Benefits Review Board, 560 F.2d 797, 802 (7th Cir.1977). Moreover, the trier is not bound to accept the opinion of any given medical officer, but may weigh the medical evidence and draw his own inferences. Such inferences, if based on adequate evidence, will be upheld on appeal. Id.

With this deferential standard in mind, we now examine both parts of the ALJ's decision. First, we find that the ALJ's finding that the "interim presumption" was triggered under all four of its parts (20 C.F.R. Sec. 707.203(a)(1)-(4) (1984)) was clearly supported by substantial evidence. Sainz had been engaged in coal mine employment for at least ten years. Both of the x-rays introduced into evidence established the existence of pneumoconiosis. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 707.203(a)(1) (1984). The ventilatory test that was performed yielded results that triggered the presumption. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 707.203(a)(2) (1984). All three blood gas tests that were performed yielded results that triggered the presumption. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 707.203(a)(3) (1984). Finally, both doctors testified that Sainz had a disabling pulmonary disease. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 707.203(a)(4) (1984).

Second, we find that the ALJ's finding that Kaiser Steel...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Stapleton v. Westmoreland Coal Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • February 26, 1986
    ... ... Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S ... Department of Labor, Benefits Review Board, Intervenor ... Luke R ... the best curve that he was able to give us would not indicate significant respiratory ... 727.203(b)(3), in Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Massey, 736 F.2d 120, 123-124 (4th Cir.1984): ... 2357, 86 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985); Kaiser Steel Corporation v. Director, Office of Workers' ... U.S. Dept. of Labor Benefits Review Board, 733 F.2d 346, ... ...
  • Blakley v. Amax Coal Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • May 25, 1995
    ... ... AMAX COAL COMPANY, and Director, Office of Workers' ... Compensation Programs, nited States Department of ... Labor, Respondents ... No. 94-2169 ... United ... Joyner (argued), Barry H. Joyner, Dept. of Labor, Office of the Sol., Washington, DC, ... Mrs. Blakley then petitioned us for review ...         The fundamental ... Inland Steel Coal Co., 933 F.2d 477, 480-81 (7th Cir.1991); ... See, e.g., Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Director, OWCP, 748 F.2d 1426, ... ...
  • Floyd v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • August 25, 1989
    ... ... involvement with the district attorney's office, acquaintance with the accused, or relationship ... ...
  • U.S. v. Ohio Edison Co., No. 2:99-CV-1181.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • August 7, 2003
    ... ... Sanders, United States Attorney's Office-2, Gary Douglas Greenwald, Shayne & Greenwald-2, ... are subject to the Clean Air Act programs at issue here ...          WEPCO, 893 ... to Defendant representatives Pipitone and Kaiser, a range of activities were undertaken to improve ... on two letters from Edward Reich, former Director of ... Page 877 ... EPA's Stationary Source ... , 3 F.3d 713, 719 (4th Cir.1993): Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Director OWCP, 748 F.2d 1426, 1430 ... 2001 Annual Energy Review, U.S. Dept. of Energy ... 2. See Wisconsin Electric ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT