Compensation Dept. of Dist. Five, United Mine Workers of America v. Marshall, No. 81-1633

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
Writing for the CourtBefore SEITZ; GARTH
Citation667 F.2d 336
Docket NumberNo. 81-1633
Decision Date09 December 1981
PartiesCOMPENSATION DEPARTMENT OF DISTRICT FIVE, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor, Donald Ellisburg, Assistant Secretary of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Ralph Hartman, Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, James R. Yocum, Associate Director, Division of Coal Mine Worker's Compensation Programs, Francis A. Demarino, Acting Chief, Branch of Claims Determination and The Department of Labor, Appellees, and Bethlehem Mines Corporation, Consolidation Coal Company, the Pittston Group, Westmoreland Coal Company, Old Republic Insurance Company, Republic Steel Corporation and the North American Coal Corporation, Nacco Mining Company, Quarto Mining Company, Intervenors-Appellees.

Page 336

667 F.2d 336
COMPENSATION DEPARTMENT OF DISTRICT FIVE, UNITED MINE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, Appellant,
v.
Ray MARSHALL, Secretary of Labor, Donald Ellisburg,
Assistant Secretary of Labor, Employment Standards
Administration, Ralph Hartman, Director, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs, James R. Yocum, Associate Director,
Division of Coal Mine Worker's Compensation Programs,
Francis A. Demarino, Acting Chief, Branch of Claims
Determination and The Department of Labor, Appellees,
and
Bethlehem Mines Corporation, Consolidation Coal Company, the
Pittston Group, Westmoreland Coal Company, Old Republic
Insurance Company, Republic Steel Corporation and the North
American Coal Corporation, Nacco Mining Company, Quarto
Mining Company, Intervenors-Appellees.
No. 81-1633.
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Argued Nov. 9, 1981.
Decided Dec. 9, 1981.

Page 337

Margaret D. Blough (argued), United Mine Workers of America, Dist. 5, Compensation Dept., Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Robert J. Cindrich, U. S. Atty., Pittsburgh, Pa., Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Anthony J. Steinmeyer, Stanley E. Alderson (argued), Attys., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendants-appellees; Cornelius Donoghue, Jr., Acting Associate Sol. for Employee Benefits, Dept. of Labor, Joseph M. Walsh, Counsel for Claims, Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., of counsel.

Charles M. Surber, Jr. (argued), Jackson, Kelly, Holt & O'Farrell, Charleston, W. Va., for intervenors-appellees.

Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, * GARTH, Circuit Judge, and POLLAK, District Judge. **

OPINION OF THE COURT

GARTH, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania which dismissed an action brought by the Compensation Department of District Five, United Mine Workers of America ("District Five") against the Secretary of Labor. District Five sought to enjoin the Secretary from rereading X-rays of black lung claimants, contending that the Secretary's practice violated § 413(b) of the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. § 923(b). We agree with the district court's determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this action. We therefore affirm its dismissal of District Five's complaint.

I.

A.

The Black Lung Benefits Act ("BLBA"), 30 U.S.C. §§ 901 et seq., provides that miners who are totally disabled by black lung disease (pneumoconiosis) are entitled to benefits which are paid either by an individual mining company or from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, to which mining companies contribute periodically. See 30 U.S.C. §§ 932(b), 934, 934a. The Secretary of Labor processes claims for these benefits filed after December 31, 1973, unless an adequate state workers' compensation law applies. 1 30 U.S.C. §§ 931, 932.

Briefly stated, the processing of black lung claims begins with an initial determination of the claimant's eligibility for black lung disability benefits by a deputy commissioner, an official of the Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation Programs within the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs. The deputy commissioner also determines whether there is a mining company (an "operator") which is liable for payment of any benefits due the claimant. After the operator has had an opportunity to rebut the claimant's evidence, the deputy commissioner issues a proposed decision and order. From that order an appeal may be taken to an administrative law judge ("ALJ"), who holds a hearing to which the

Page 338

claimant, the operator, and the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, among others, are parties. Once the ALJ issues his order, any dissatisfied party may then appeal to the Benefits Review Board ("BRB"), which is "authorized to hear or determine appeals raising a substantial question of law or fact." 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(3). See generally 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.350-.483. Finally, any party dissatisfied with the BRB's disposition of the case "may obtain a review of that order in the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which the injury occurred." 33 U.S.C. § 921(c). 2

B.

In establishing eligibility for black lung benefits, various types of evidence are considered, including

medical tests such as blood gas studies, X-ray examination, electrocardiogram, pulmonary function studies, or physical performance tests, and any medical history, evidence submitted by the claimant's physician, or his wife's affidavits, and in the case of a deceased miner, other appropriate affidavits of persons with knowledge of the miner's physical condition, and other supportive materials.

§ 413(b) of the BLBA, 30 U.S.C. § 923(b). 3 The use to which X-rays may be put in passing upon a claim, however, is specifically governed by § 413(b). First, the statute provides that "no claim for benefits ... shall be denied solely on the basis of the results of a chest roentgenogram." Id. Second, the statute requires that the Secretary accept the interpretation of the X-ray rendered by a radiologist on behalf of the claimant, so long as (1) there is other evidence of pulmonary or respiratory impairment, (2) the X-ray was taken by a radiologist or qualified technician, and the radiologist interpreting it is board-certified, (3) the X-ray is of adequate quality, and (4) there is no reason to believe that any fraud is being committed. 4

It is the meaning of the second restriction-requiring the Secretary to accept the interpretation of the X-ray rendered by the claimant's radiologist-that has given rise to the underlying dispute between District Five and the Secretary of Labor. District Five contends that § 413(b) forbids the Secretary from engaging in any "substantive" rereading of X-rays whatsoever-that is, reading of X-rays for any purposes other than to verify the quality of the X-ray. The Secretary of Labor, on the other hand, contends that the requirement that the Secretary, under certain circumstances, "accept" the interpretation of a board-certified radiologist binds only the Secretary and his agents, and not the ALJ or the BRB. Further, the Secretary asserts that § 413(b) in no way forbids the substantive rereading of X-rays. See Government's Brief at 40-46.

Thus, before this suit was filed, it appears that an X-ray submitted by a claimant was

Page 339

routinely referred to a "B-reader," a physician qualified in diagnosing black lung disease from X-rays, see 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(1)(ii) (E). The B-reader would examine the X-ray not only to ensure that it was "of adequate quality to demonstrate the presence of pneumoconiosis," 30 U.S.C. § 923(b), but also to arrive at his own independent conclusion as to whether the X-ray indicated the presence of black lung disease. While the B-reader might, of course, agree with the interpretation of the claimant's radiologist, he might also conclude that an X-ray in fact revealed no black lung disease at all. In those circumstances, while the Secretary of Labor acknowledged that the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs was bound by the positive interpretation of the X-ray submitted on behalf of the claimant, see 20 C.F.R. §§ 718.202(a)(1)(i), 727.206(b)(1), the Secretary interpreted § 413(b) to bind neither the ALJ nor the BRB. As a result, the B-reader's negative rereading was made available to the operator for use as rebuttal evidence at the hearing before the ALJ, who could credit the B-reader's negative interpretation over the positive diagnosis of the claimant's radiologist. 5

Seeking to prevent the Secretary from substantively rereading the X-rays in those circumstances where § 413(b) requires the Secretary to "accept" the interpretation of the claimant's radiologist, District Five filed a complaint and a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction on December 31, 1980. Although the district court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order, it granted the motion for a preliminary injunction on January 13, 1981. Subsequently, the district court allowed a number of operators to intervene as defendants under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b).

C.

On February 11, 1981, the district court ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over District Five's action. The district court observed that the BLBA and applicable regulations provide for an adjudication process by which "claims are processed by a Deputy Commissioner, appeals are taken to an Administrative Law Judge, further appeals are taken to the Benefits Review Board and appeals from Board decisions are taken to the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals." App. 360. Moreover, the district court noted, the BLBA specifically provides for federal district court jurisdiction "in only two very narrow cases," both involving enforcement orders against operators. Id. at 361. 6

Reasoning that the form of review provided in a statute is ordinarily intended to be exclusive, the district court inferred from this scheme that Congress did not intend the district courts to have subject matter jurisdiction to grant the relief that District Five sought. Thus the district court dissolved the preliminary injunction and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It did not pass on the merits of District Five's allegations. 7

Page 340

After the dismissal was ordered, the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs issued a set of "Temporary Instructions Covering X-ray Rereading." See Addendum to Government's Brief, reprinted as Appendix to this opinion, infra. These instructions, dated February 19, 1981, were based on a ruling of the BRB, issued on February 6, 1981, in the case of Tobias v. Republic Steel Corporation (80-1114-BLA), involving the same dispute over the meaning of § 413(b) as District Five had raised in its complaint in district court. In Tobias, which is discussed more fully below, the BRB rejected the Secretary's interpretation of § 413(b) and in large part adopted District Five's position. As a result, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 practice notes
  • Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. F.C.C., Nos. 84-1035
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • October 24, 1984
    ...in other courts in all cases covered by that statute. Compensation Department of District Five, United Mine Workers v. Marshall, 667 F.2d 336, 340 (3rd Cir.1981); Assure Competitive Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 629 F.2d 467, 471 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1124, 101 S.C......
  • National Min. Ass'n v. Department of Labor, No. 01-5278.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 14, 2002
    ...of Appeals. 30 U.S.C. § 811(d).2 The government also relies on two circuit court cases, Compensation Dep't of Dist. Five v. Marshall, 667 F.2d 336, 340-44 (3d Cir.1981), and Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Donovan, 713 F.2d 1243, 1245-47 (6th Cir.1983), denying pre-enforcement review under t......
  • Denberg v. U.S. R.R. Retirement Bd., No. 81-2386
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • May 10, 1983
    ...(D.C.Cir.1978); City of Rochester v. Bond, supra, 603 F.2d at 934-35; Compensation Dept. Five, United Mine Workers of America v. Marshall, 667 F.2d 336, 340 (3d Cir.1981); Columbia Power Trades Council v. United States Dept. of Energy, 671 F.2d 325, 326 (9th Cir.1982); City of Peoria v. Gen......
  • Arch Coal, Inc. v. Hugler, Civil Action No. 16–669 (JDB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 16, 2017
    ...Nashville R.R. Co. v. Donovan , 713 F.2d 1243, 1244 (6th Cir. 1983) ; Comp. Dep't of Dist. Five, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Marshall , 667 F.2d 336, 337 (3d Cir. 1981).Moreover, the BLBA's claims adjudication scheme is nearly indistinguishable from the ones at issue in Jarkesy and Thunde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
  • Telecommunications Research and Action Center v. F.C.C., Nos. 84-1035
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • October 24, 1984
    ...in other courts in all cases covered by that statute. Compensation Department of District Five, United Mine Workers v. Marshall, 667 F.2d 336, 340 (3rd Cir.1981); Assure Competitive Transportation, Inc. v. United States, 629 F.2d 467, 471 (7th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1124, 101 S.C......
  • National Min. Ass'n v. Department of Labor, No. 01-5278.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 14, 2002
    ...of Appeals. 30 U.S.C. § 811(d).2 The government also relies on two circuit court cases, Compensation Dep't of Dist. Five v. Marshall, 667 F.2d 336, 340-44 (3d Cir.1981), and Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Donovan, 713 F.2d 1243, 1245-47 (6th Cir.1983), denying pre-enforcement review under t......
  • Denberg v. U.S. R.R. Retirement Bd., No. 81-2386
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • May 10, 1983
    ...(D.C.Cir.1978); City of Rochester v. Bond, supra, 603 F.2d at 934-35; Compensation Dept. Five, United Mine Workers of America v. Marshall, 667 F.2d 336, 340 (3d Cir.1981); Columbia Power Trades Council v. United States Dept. of Energy, 671 F.2d 325, 326 (9th Cir.1982); City of Peoria v. Gen......
  • Arch Coal, Inc. v. Hugler, Civil Action No. 16–669 (JDB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 16, 2017
    ...Nashville R.R. Co. v. Donovan , 713 F.2d 1243, 1244 (6th Cir. 1983) ; Comp. Dep't of Dist. Five, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Marshall , 667 F.2d 336, 337 (3d Cir. 1981).Moreover, the BLBA's claims adjudication scheme is nearly indistinguishable from the ones at issue in Jarkesy and Thunde......
  • 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