Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Forsyth Energy, Inc., s. 81-1325
| Decision Date | 11 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 81-1325,81-1505,s. 81-1325 |
| Citation | 666 F.2d 1104 |
| Parties | DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Petitioner, v. FORSYTH ENERGY, INC., Old Republic Companies, Alex C. McCluskie, Forsyth-Carterville Coal Company, and Ray Legan, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Joseph T. Bednarik, Sol. of Labor, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mark E. Solomons, Kilcullen & Kilcullen, Ctd., Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Before SWYGERT, Senior Circuit Judge, SPRECHER, Circuit Judge, and CRABB, District Judge. *
The two claims consolidated for this appeal involve the interpretation of Section 435(a)(2)(A) under Title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901 et seq. 1 (hereinafter "the Act").
Before resolving the issues presented by this appeal, we find it necessary to discuss the history of the Act. Congress enacted Title IV of the Act 2 to provide benefits for coal miners totally disabled by pneumoconiosis and the eligible survivors of miners who died due to the disease. The financial responsibility for the compensation of miners was divided into two parts. Under Part B of the 1969 Act, all claims for benefits filed before January 1, 1973 were to be adjudicated by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. If approved, these claims were to be paid from general federal revenues. Under Part C, claims on or after January 1, 1973 were to be filed under an approved state workers' compensation law. In the absence of an approved state plan, claims were filed with and processed by the United States Department of Labor. Part C claims were to be paid by a responsible coal mine operator if one could be identified. A coal mine operator was required to secure the payment of benefits for which it might be found liable by purchasing an approved policy of insurance or by qualifying as a self insurer with the Department of Labor. If no operator was found to be responsible or if an operator failed to pay benefits for any number of reasons, the claim was to be paid from general federal revenues. 3
In 1972, the Act was amended to alter the filing periods and extend the program termination Subsequent to January 1, 1974, when Part C went into effect, it became clear that Congress's original intention to transfer all liability for Part C claims to the coal industry was not being realized. 6 In order to finally and completely ensure that coal mine operators bear the fiscal responsibility for payment of Black Lung Benefits, the Act was amended by the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977 7 and the Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1977. 8 The Revenue Act established the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, the corpus of which is supported principally through an excise tax levied on the sale of coal. The fund is to be used to pay benefits to claimants where there is no coal operator required to pay or where an operator is in default. 9 The principal feature of the Reform Act was the establishment of more lenient standards of eligibility and a mechanism providing for the review under the new standards of all claims pending or denied under the old standards.
date. 4 The Part B filing period was enlarged to encompass all claims filed prior to July 1, 1973. Part C now included all claims filed after December 31, 1973. Those claims filed between July 1 and December 31, 1973 were covered by section 415, which provided that the United States had responsibility for these claims until December 31, 1973. Thereafter, responsible operators could be found liable for benefits as if the claim had been filed pursuant to Part C. 5
According to section 15 of the Reform Act (section 435 of the Act), all pending or denied Part B claimants are required to make an election under section 435(a) and their claims follow one of three courses:
(1) The claimant could choose review of his claim by the Secretary of HEW and his claim could be approved by HEW under section 435(a)(2)(A), and forwarded to the Secretary of Labor as an initial determination of eligibility with instructions to make or otherwise provide for the payment of the claim in accordance with this part. 10
(2) The claimant could choose review of his claim by the Secretary of HEW and his claim could be denied by HEW under section 435(a)(2)(B) and, if denied, then transferred to the Secretary of Labor for review with an opportunity to submit additional evidence; or
(3) The claimant could choose review by the Secretary of Labor under section 435(a)(1)(B), with the opportunity to submit additional evidence.
The sole issue on these appeals is whether claims approved pursuant to section 435(a)(2)(A) (Course (1), supra) are the responsibility of the individual coal operators or of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.
Both of the claims involved in these appeals are old Part B claims which were Under the respondent-operators' interpretation of the Act, HEW's determination of eligibility is final and the claims can only be paid from the trust fund. Under the petitioner-Director's interpretation, HEW's determination of eligibility triggers an interim payment mechanism: if a responsible operator can be identified, he must assume the payments, but he has the opportunity to controvert the determination of eligibility. Where there is no responsible operator, then the benefits must be paid out of the trust fund.
previously denied. 11 After the 1977 amendments were passed, both claimants elected review by HEW and both claims were approved. Pursuant to § 435(a)(2) (A), the approved claims were certified to the Secretary of Labor who proceeded to identify a responsible coal operator. When the respective responsible coal operators refused to commence benefit payments, each case was heard de novo by an administrative law judge. The administrative law judges determined that the coal operators were liable for payment of benefits. These decisions were appealed to the Benefits Review Board of the United States Department of Labor. The Review Board overturned the administrative law judges' decisions based on its ruling in Yakubco v. Republic Steel Corp. 12 In Yakubco, the Review Board held that individual coal operators are not responsible for old Part B claims certified under section 435(a)(2)(A). The Review Board determined that these claims were to be paid only from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. The Director of the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs appealed from this Review Board ruling in order to protect the assets of the trust fund.
In interpreting a statute, this court's function "... is to give effect to the intent of Congress." 13 The most persuasive evidence of this intent is the words selected by Congress. The language of section 435(a)(2)(A) and other pertinent sections of the Act leads us to the conclusion that the Director's interpretation is the correct one.
Section 435(a)(2)(A) states that the approval of a claim by the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare is binding "upon the Secretary of Labor" and as an "initial determination of eligibility." The operators' interpretation would render the word "initial" superfluous and would have HEW's determination binding on everyone, not just the Secretary of Labor. The operators contend that "initial" is not superfluous because of section 435(a) (2)(B)(ii). This section provides that after approval by HEW, a claimant can contest the scope or terms of the award. Thus the word "initial" refers to the possibility of further proceedings. This argument is unpersuasive. Section 435(a)(2)(A) refers to determinations of eligibility under the Act. The phrase "initial determination of eligibility" cannot refer to both eligibility and scope and terms; they are two distinct concepts and the import of the term "eligibility" is not so broad as to encompass "scope and terms."
It is important to note that the phrase "initial determination" also appears in section 424(a)(1)(A)(i) 14 of the Act under the provisions for operator liability. "(T)here is a natural presumption that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning." 15 The most reasonable inference from this is that an initial determination is a procedural step in claims where an operator may be liable.
Section 435(a)(2)(A) also provides that the Secretary of Labor "... shall immediately An examination of the clause "make or otherwise provide," also a part of section 435(a)(2)(A) supports this conclusion. The clause suggests two or more alternative forms of payment. The operators maintain that this refers to section 20(b) of the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977 17 and the trust fund. Section 20(b), however, revives the payments of benefits from general federal revenues in the event that the trust fund cannot be used. This is obviously an extraordinary measure given Congress's manifest intention to transfer all liability for black lung benefits to the coal industry, and it is unlikely that Congress intended to incorporate this extreme provision into the normal workings of the Act. 18 We find it more reasonable that Congress intended this clause to refer to the trust fund and operator liability as the alternative forms of payment.
make or otherwise provide for the payment of the claim in accordance with this part." Section 435 is within Part C of the Act and therefore the phrase "in accordance with this part" can only refer to Part C. The operators contend that this phrase should be limited to relevant Part C provisions and point specifically to section 424(a)(1)(B) which authorizes the use of the trust fund monies where "there is no operator who is required to secure the payment of ... benefits." 16 However, Part C contains provisions for both operator liability and trust fund...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudson, In re, 87-3913
... ... F.2d 1030, 1032 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Director, Office of ... Page 1420 ... Workers' sation Programs v. Forsyth Energy, Inc., 666 F.2d 1104, 1107 (7th ... ...
-
Foxgord v. Hischemoeller, 85-5976
...evidence of ... [congressional] intent is the words selected by Congress." Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Forsyth Energy, Inc., 666 F.2d 1104, 1107 (7th Cir.1981). It is a maxim of statutory construction that unless otherwise defined, words should be given their ordin......
-
U.S. v. Markgraf
...interpretation given by the administrative agency charged with enforcing the statute. See Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Forsyth Energy, Inc., 666 F.2d 1104, 1107 (7th Cir.1981). We begin, as we must, with the language of the statute itself. Howe v. Smith, 452 U.S. 47......
-
Ulane v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.
...and determine what Congress intended when it decided to outlaw discrimination based on sex. See United States Department of Labor v. Forsyth Energy, Inc., 666 F.2d 1104, 1107 (7th Cir.1981). The district judge did recognize that Congress manifested an intention to exclude homosexuals from T......