Energy W. Mining Co. v. Lyle ex rel. Lyle
Decision Date | 09 July 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 18-9537,18-9537 |
Citation | 929 F.3d 1202 |
Parties | ENERGY WEST MINING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Joann H. LYLE, ON BEHALF OF James E. LYLE; Department of Labor, Respondents. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
William S. Mattingly, Jackson Kelly PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Petitioner.
Victoria S. Herman (Joseph E. Wolfe, with her on the brief), Norton, Virginia, for Joann H. Lyle, Respondent.
Edward Waldman, Attorney, Department of Labor (Kate S. O’Scannlain, Solicitor of Labor; Kevin Lyskwoski, Acting Associate Solicitor; Gary K. Stearman, Counsel for Appellate Litigation; and Ann Marie Scarpino, Attorney, Department of Labor, on the brief), Washington, D.C., for Department of Labor, Respondent.
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, and BACHARACH and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
Mr. James Lyle worked as a coal miner for roughly 28 years. After retiring, he sought benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. See 30 U.S.C. § 901 et seq . An administrative law judge concluded that Mr. Lyle was entitled to benefits, and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Benefits Review Board affirmed. Energy West has filed a petition for review of the Board’s decision.
We reject most of Energy West’s arguments but agree with its challenge to the administrative law judge’s analysis of an opinion by Dr. Joseph Tomashefski, Jr. In this analysis, the judge discounted Dr. Tomashefski’s medical opinion for a reason unsupported by the record. We thus vacate the award of benefits1 and remand to the Board for reconsideration of Dr. Tomashefski’s opinion.
But Energy West admittedly did not present this challenge to the Benefits Review Board.
Energy West contends that the Benefits Review Board couldn’t have remedied the problem by appointing an administrative law judge.3 But the Board could have remedied a violation of the Appointments Clause by vacating the administrative law judge’s decision and remanding for reconsideration by a constitutionally appointed officer. See, e.g. , Miller v. Pine Branch Coal Sales, Inc. , BRB No. 18-0323 BLA, 2018 WL 8269864 (Oct. 22, 2018) (per curiam) (en banc) (granting this relief). Given the availability of a remedy, Energy West needed to present this challenge to the Benefits Review Board. Energy West didn’t, precluding our exercise of jurisdiction over the issue. See Big Horn Coal Co. v. Sadler , 924 F.3d 1317, 1325–26 (10th Cir. 2019) ( ); McConnell v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Labor , 993 F.2d 1454, 1460 n.8 (10th Cir. 1993) ( ).4
The administrative law judge concluded that Mr. Lyle was entitled to benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. Energy West challenges this conclusion, arguing in part that the judge erroneously discounted Dr. Tomashefski’s opinion on legal pneumoconiosis. We agree with this part of Energy West’s argument but reject its other arguments.
Spring Creek Coal Co. v. McLean , 881 F.3d 1211, 1217 (10th Cir. 2018). We engage in de novo review of the administrative law judge’s legal conclusions and consider whether substantial evidentiary support exists for his factual findings. Id.
Evidence is substantial if a reasonable person might view it "as adequate to support a conclusion." Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. N.L.R.B. , 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S.Ct. 206, 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938). We do not reweigh the evidence; we instead ask whether the administrative law judge’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. Antelope Coal Co./Rio Tinto Energy Am. v. Goodin , 743 F.3d 1331, 1341 (10th Cir. 2014). The task of evaluating medical evidence lies solely with the administrative law judge, who is ideally positioned to assess credibility and balance conflicting evidence. Rockwood Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Labor , 917 F.3d 1198, 1214 (10th Cir. 2019).
The Black Lung Benefits Act provides benefits to coal miners who become disabled from pneumoconiosis (commonly known as black-lung disease ) arising from coal-mine employment. Goodin , 743 F.3d at 1335. To be eligible for benefits, a miner must establish four elements:
Energy West Mining Co. v. Estate of Blackburn , 857 F.3d 817, 821 (10th Cir. 2017).
But if a miner has worked in a coal mine for at least fifteen years and establishes the disability element, we would presume satisfaction of the remaining three elements. Id. at 822 ; see 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4) ; 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(b) – (c). The burden would then shift to the employer to rebut the presumption on at least one of the three remaining elements. Estate of Blackburn , 857 F.3d at 822 ; see 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4) ; 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(d).
20 C.F.R. § 718.204(b)(2)(ii), (iv).
Arterial blood-gas studies gauge the lungs’ ability to oxygenate the blood. Rockwood Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Labor , 917 F.3d 1198, 1209 (10th Cir. 2019). For an arterial blood-gas study to establish the disability element, the results must show that the blood’s oxygen-pressure level dipped below the regulatory threshold. See 20 C.F.R. pt. 718, App. C.
See id. For example, if the study is conducted between 3,000 and 5,999 feet above sea level, a miner with a carbon-dioxide pressure level of 26 should have an oxygen-pressure level exceeding 69; if the oxygen-pressure level of the miner’s blood is 69 or below, the oxygen-pressure level would be considered too low, indicating a "total disability." Id.
If an arterial blood-gas study yields qualifying values, the administrative law judge must find a total disability "in the absence of rebutting evidence." Id. ; see Regulations Implementing the Byrd Amendments to the Black Lung Benefits Act: Determining Coal Miners’ and Survivors’ Entitlement to Benefits, 77 Fed. Reg. 19456, 19464 (Mar. 30, 2012) ().
In arriving at these opinions, Dr. Gagon relied partly on the 201...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bailey v. E. Associated Coal Co.
... ... EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL COMPANY and PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION Employer/Carrier-Petitioners DIRECTOR, OFFICE ... Mining Co. v. Lyle , 929 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 2019) ... ...
-
Cirko ex rel. Cirko v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.
...244 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2001) (same), and the Appointments Clause cases he cites outside the SSA context, see Energy W. Mining Co. v. Lyle , 929 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th Cir. 2019) ; Jones Bros., Inc. v. Sec’y of Labor , 898 F.3d 669, 677 (6th Cir. 2018) ; In re DBC , 545 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed ......
-
Hall v. Arch of Ky.
... ... See ... Jericol Mining, Inc. v. Napier , 301 F.3d 703, 712-14 ... (6th Cir ... courts") (citation omitted); see also Energy W ... Mining Co. v. Lyle , 929 F.3d 1202, 1206 (10th ... ...
-
Mullins v. M & M Coal Co., Inc.
... ... See Gibas v ... Saginaw Mining Co. , 748 F.2d 1112, 1116 (6th Cir. 1984) ... See Energy ... West Mining Co. v. Lyle , 929 F.3d 1202 (10th ... ...