Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co.

• Citation: 468 F.3d 213
• Decision Date: 08 November 2006
• Docket Number: No. 05-1832.,05-1832.
• Parties: Nora L. COLLINS, widow of Johnnie J. Collins, Petitioner, v. POND CREEK MINING COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)

Page 213

468 F.3d 213

Nora L. COLLINS, widow of Johnnie J. Collins, Petitioner, v. POND CREEK MINING COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.

No. 05-1832.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 24, 2006.

Decided November 8, 2006.

ARGUED:

Leonard Joseph Stayton, Inez, Kentucky, for Petitioner. Douglas Allan Smoot, Jackson & Kelly, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondent Pond Creek Mining Company; Rita A. Roppolo, United States Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.

ON BRIEF:

Kathy L. Snyder, Jackson & Kelly, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondent Pond Creek Mining Company Howard M. Radzely, Solicitor of Labor, Patricia M. Nece, for Appellate Litigation, United States Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, D.C., for Respondent Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and Joseph R. GOODWIN, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

Petition for review granted; order vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge KING wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge GOODWIN joined. Judge SHEDD wrote a dissenting opinion.

OPINION

KING, Circuit Judge.

Nora Collins ("Mrs. Collins") petitions for review of the 2005 Decision and Order of the Benefits Review Board (the "BRB") denying her claim for survivor's benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (the "Black Lung Act" or the "Act"). In so doing, Mrs. Collins contends, inter alia, that the BRB and the Administrative Law Judge (the "ALJ") erroneously failed to accord collateral estoppel effect to an earlier ALJ's 1988 ruling that her late husband suffered from pneumoconiosis as a result of his work in the coal mines of southern Appalachia. As explained below, we agree with Mrs. Collins that the BRB erred in 2005 by not according preclusive effect to the 1988 ALJ ruling. We grant her petition for review, vacate the 2005 BRB Decision and Order, and remand.

I.

Mrs. Collins's late husband, Johnny Collins ("Mr. Collins"), worked underground in the coal mines of southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky for over thirty-six years. During his extensive mining career, Mr. Collins, inter alia, operated a cutting machine, a motor, and a loading machine; worked on "the belt"; laid track; loaded coal; and worked as a belt repairman. On February 25, 1988, Mr. Collins was awarded benefits under the Black Lung Act by Decision and Order of an ALJ. Collins v. Pond Creek Coal Co., No. 85-BLA-5349 (Feb. 25, 1988) (the "1988 ALJ Decision"). In that proceeding, the Pond Creek Coal Company ("Pond Creek") was named as the responsible operator.¹ The 1988 ALJ Decision was premised on the ALJ's findings that Mr. Collins had established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) he had pneumoconiosis (commonly known as "black lung disease"); (2) he was totally disabled; and (3) his total disability was due to pneumoconiosis. As a result of the 1988 ALJ Decision—from which Pond Creek did not appeal—Mr. Collins received black lung benefits until his death on September 16, 1997.²

On September 29, 1997, Mr. Collins's widow filed a claim for survivor's benefits under 30 U.S.C. § 922(a)(2), naming Pond Creek as the responsible operator. In order to be entitled to benefits, Mrs. Collins was obliged to show that (1) she was Mr. Collins's widow, (2) Mr. Collins suffered from pneumoconiosis as a result of his coal mine employment, and (3) pneumoconiosis hastened his death. See § 922(a)(2) (providing that coal miner's widow can receive benefits if miner's death was "due to pneumoconiosis"); 20 C.F.R. § 718.205(c)(2) & (5) (providing that miner's death is "due to pneumoconiosis" if pneumoconiosis "hastens the miner's death"). And, in establishing that Mr. Collins had developed pneumoconiosis as a result of working in the coal mines for thirty-six years, Mrs. Collins asserted that she was entitled to rely on the collateral estoppel effect of the 1988 ALJ Decision.

By Decision and Order of December 21, 2001, the ALJ denied Mrs. Collins's claim for survivor's benefits. Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., No.1998-BLA-1295 (Dec. 21, 2001) (the "2001 ALJ Decision"). In so doing, the ALJ ruled the 1988 ALJ Decision was not entitled to collateral estoppel effect because of our 2000 decision in Island Creek Coal Co. v. Compton, 211 F.3d 203 (4th Cir.2000). See 2001 ALJ Decision at 14. In Compton, we ruled that an ALJ must consider all of the relevant evidence in assessing whether a coal miner suffers from pneumoconiosis. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)'s four subsections, a miner's pneumoconiosis may be established in four ways: (1) chest X-rays; (2) biopsy or autopsy results; (3) certain regulatory presumptions (not relevant here); and (4) a physician's opinion based on medical evidence. Our Compton decision invalidated the BRB's practice of allowing an ALJ to find that a coal miner suffers from pneumoconiosis by relying on evidence falling under one of the four subsections of § 718.202(a) (such as chest X-rays), while ignoring contrary evidence belonging to one of the other three subsections (such as physicians' opinions). See 211 F.3d at 211. That practice, as Judge Wilkins explained in Compton, contradicted 30 U.S.C. § 923(b)'s statutory mandate that an ALJ must consider "all relevant evidence" in making a pneumoconiosis finding. Id.

In this case, the ALJ concluded, in December 2001, that the pre-Compton 1988 ALJ Decision was not entitled to any collateral estoppel effect, and that Mrs. Collins therefore could not rely on it in establishing Mr. Collins's pneumoconiosis. The ALJ then considered anew the evidence concerning Mr. Collins's respiratory condition, and he ruled, contrary to the 1988 ALJ Decision, that Mr. Collins had never suffered from pneumoconiosis (and thus that his death had not been hastened by the disease).

Mrs. Collins then appealed the 2001 ALJ Decision to the BRB. By its Decision and Order of January 28, 2003, the BRB affirmed the 2001 ALJ Decision's collateral estoppel ruling, but it vacated the ALJ's no-pneumoconiosis finding and remanded for the ALJ to reweigh the evidence. Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., 22 Black Lung Rep. (MB) 1-229 (BRB 2003) (the "2003 BRB Decision"). On remand, the ALJ again found that Mr. Collins had never suffered from pneumoconiosis. Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., No.1998-BLA-1295 (Aug. 16, 2004) (the "2004 ALJ Decision"). Additionally, the ALJ determined that, even assuming the existence of pneumoconiosis, there was insufficient evidence that the disease hastened Mr. Collins's death. On Mrs. Collins's appeal from the 2004 ALJ Decision, the BRB reiterated its earlier position that Mrs. Collins was not entitled to rely on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and it affirmed the ALJ's findings of no pneumoconiosis and lack of causation. Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., BRB No. 04-0899 BLA (June 15, 2005) (the "2005 BRB Decision"). Mrs. Collins has now petitioned for review of the 2005 BRB Decision, and we possess jurisdiction pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 921(c).

II.

We review an ALJ decision that has been affirmed by the BRB to determine whether it is in accordance with the law and supported by substantial evidence. Island Creek Coal Co. v. Compton, 211 F.3d 203, 207-08 (4th Cir.2000); Piney Mountain Coal Co. v. Mays, 176 F.3d 753, 756 (4th Cir.1999). In so doing, we confine our review to the grounds upon which the BRB based its decision. See Grigg v. Dir., OWCP, 28 F.3d 416, 418 (4th Cir.1994). As always, we review de novo the BRB's conclusions of law. Milburn Colliery Co. v. Hicks, 138 F.3d 524, 528 (4th Cir.1998).

III.

Mrs. Collins's principal contention in this proceeding is that the BRB erred in failing to accord collateral estoppel effect to the ruling, made in the 1988 ALJ Decision, that Mr. Collins had developed pneumoconiosis through his coal mine employment.³ "Under collateral estoppel, once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation." Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153, 99 S.Ct. 970, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979). And, as we have observed, findings of fact made during administrative adjudications are to be accorded the same collateral estoppel effect they would receive if made by a court. See Jones v. SEC, 115 F.3d 1173, 1178 (4th Cir.1997). Because Mrs. Collins is in the position of a plaintiff who was not a party to the 1988 ALJ proceeding, we must assess not only whether the general requirements for collateral estoppel have been established, but also whether application of the doctrine of "offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel" might be unfair to Pond Creek in this case.⁴

A.

A party seeking to rely on the doctrine of collateral estoppel is obliged to establish five elements: (1) that "the issue sought to be precluded is identical to one previously litigated" ("element one"); (2) that the issue was actually determined in the prior proceeding ("element two"); (3) that the issue's determination was "a critical and necessary part of the decision in the prior proceeding" ("element three"); (4) that the prior judgment is final and valid ("element four"); and (5) that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted "had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the previous forum" ("element five"). Sedlack v. Braswell Servs. Group, Inc., 134 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir.1998). The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not bar the relitigation of factual issues "where the party against whom the doctrine is invoked had a heavier burden of persuasion on that issue in the first action than he does in the...