Energy W. Mining Co. v. Estate of Blackburn
Decision Date | 23 May 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 16-9533,16-9533 |
Citation | 857 F.3d 817 |
Parties | ENERGY WEST MINING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. The ESTATE OF Morris E. BLACKBURN; Phyllis E. Blackburn; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
William S. Mattingly, Jackson Kelly PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Petitioner.
Evan B. Smith, Appalachian Citizens' Law Center, Whitesburg, Kentucky, for the Estate of Morris E. Blackburn, and Phyllis E. Blackburn, Respondents.
Before KELLY, EBEL, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
Mr. Morris Blackburn worked as a coal miner for roughly twenty years, continually exposing himself to dust in an Energy West coal mine. He also smoked cigarettes and eventually developed a respiratory disease. Based on this disease, Mr. Blackburn claimed benefits under the Black Lung
Benefits Act.1 In response, Energy West contended that Mr. Blackburn had caused his disease by smoking cigarettes. The United States Department of Labor's Benefits Review Board affirmed an award of compensation, and Energy West petitions for review. We deny the petition, concluding that the Board did not err in affirming the award.
This case began with Mr. Blackburn's filing of a claim for statutory benefits under the Black Lung
Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901 -945. Statutory benefits are available to disabled coal miners who suffer from various lung disorders as a result of their employment. In this case, the parties agree that Mr. Blackburn was disabled from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, a type of lung disease, which in his case was characterized by emphysema.2 The dispute is whether the disease was caused by Mr. Blackburn's work in a coal mine. One physician (Doctor David James) answered "yes"; two other physicians (Doctors Robert Farney and Peter Tuteur) answered "no."
In 2012, Administrative Law Judge Richard Malamphy denied benefits. Judge Malamphy first found that Mr. Blackburn qualified for a statutory presumption of an entitlement to benefits. But Judge Malamphy determined that Energy West had rebutted the presumption by showing that Mr. Blackburn's lung disease had not arisen from his employment in a coal mine.
Mr. Blackburn appealed to the Benefits Review Board, which vacated Judge Malamphy's decision. In the Board's view, Judge Malamphy had simply summarized the evidence without explaining why he believed Doctors Farney and Tuteur rather than Doctor James. The Board remanded for Judge Malamphy to weigh the conflicting medical reports and provide a reasoned decision.
On remand, the case was reassigned to a different administrative law judge (Judge Paul Johnson, Jr.).3 Judge Johnson disagreed with Judge Malamphy's original decision, concluding that Energy West had not rebutted the statutory presumption. For this conclusion, Judge Johnson reasoned that Doctors Farney and Tuteur were not credible. On appeal, the Board affirmed.
Energy West petitions for review, arguing that the Board erred when reviewing the decisions of both administrative law judges. For the first decision, Energy West contends that Judge Malamphy provided an adequate explanation. For the second decision, Energy West maintains that Judge Johnson erroneously ruled beyond the scope of the remand, rendered a decision unsupported by substantial evidence, drew his own medical conclusions, treated the regulatory "preamble" as if it had the force of law, failed to review the medical opinions in an even-handed way, and applied the wrong legal standard.
We also conclude that Judge Johnson did not treat the preamble as if it had the force of law and did not improperly review the medical opinions. We need not decide whether Judge Johnson applied the wrong legal standard because any error would have been harmless.
Congress enacted the Black Lung
Benefits Act to compensate coal miners who become disabled from certain lung diseases (known collectively as "pneumoconiosis") that arose out of employment in a coal mine. 30 U.S.C. § 901. To be entitled to benefits, a claimant must establish four elements:
3. Disability (the miner is totally disabled because of a respiratory or pulmonary impairment), and
4. Disability causation (the pneumoconiosis is a substantially contributing cause of the miner's total disability).
Antelope Coal Co./Rio Tinto Energy Am. v. Goodin , 743 F.3d 1331, 1335 (10th Cir. 2014).4
There are two definitions of pneumoconiosis
—"clinical" and "legal." 20 C.F.R. § 718.201(a). This case involves legal pneumoconiosis, not clinical pneumoconiosis. For legal pneumoconiosis, a miner must suffer from "any chronic lung disease or impairment and its sequelae" that "ar[ose] out of coal mine employment." Id. § 718.201(a)(2) ; see Andersen v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs , 455 F.3d 1102, 1104 (10th Cir. 2006). Thus, for legal pneumoconiosis, claimants must satisfy both the Disease and Disease causation elements. See 20 C.F.R. § 718.201(a)(2) ; Andersen , 455 F.3d at 1105-07. In other words, the miner must suffer from a chronic lung disease or impairment arising out of coal-mine employment.
Ordinarily, claimants must prove each of the four elements.
Goodin , 743 F.3d at 1335. But Mr. Blackburn had worked in a coal mine for at least 15 years. Thus, the Act softens his burden: The "15-year presumption" provides that if Mr. Blackburn had established the Disability element, he would have been entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the remaining three elements (Disease , Disease causation , and Disability causation ) were also established.5 See 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4) ; 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(b)-(c).6 The burden would then shift to Energy West to disprove one of these three elements. See 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4) ; 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(d)(1).
The parties agree that Mr. Blackburn satisfied his threshold burden, triggering the presumption of Disease , Disease causation , and Disability causation . Energy West tried to rebut the presumption by showing that Mr. Blackburn never had legal pneumoconiosis because his lung disease had not arisen out of his employment in a coal mine (Disease causation ). See 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(d)(1)(i)(A) ( ). The Benefits Review Board affirmed Judge Johnson's conclusion that Energy West had not rebutted the presumption. On appeal, we consider the correctness of the Board's decision.
For questions of fact, we formally review the Board's two decisions, but focus on the decisions by the two administrative law judges. See Antelope Coal Co./Rio Tinto Energy Am. v. Goodin , 743 F.3d 1331, 1341 n.13 (10th Cir. 2014). For questions of law, we engage in de novo review of the Board's decisions. Id. at 1341.
Energy West contends that the Board improperly concluded that Judge Malamphy had not provided an adequate explanation for his denial of benefits. This contention triggers de novo review. Gunderson v. U.S. Dep't of Labor , 601 F.3d 1013, 1021 (10th Cir. 2010). In conducting de novo review, we agree with the Board that Judge Malamphy failed to adequately explain the reasons for his conclusion.7
An agency's adjudicative decision must be " 'accompanied by a clear and satisfactory explication of the basis on which it rests.' " Id . at 1022 (quoting Barren Creek Coal Co. v. Witmer , 111 F.3d 352, 356 (3d Cir. 1997) ). This duty of explanation does not mandate " 'verbosity or pedantry,' " but requires only that the administrative law judge provide an explanation that allows us to discern the decision and the reasons for it. Id. (quoting Piney Mountain Coal Co. v. Mays , 176 F.3d 753, 762 n.10 (4th Cir. 1999) ).
In cases involving conflicting medical or scientific evidence, an administrative law judge must " 'articulate a reason and provide support' " to favor one opinion over another. Id. (quoting Stalcup v. Peabody Coal Co. , 477 F.3d 482, 484 (7th Cir. 2007) ). This requires more than a " 'cursory statement' " that one expert's opinion is more persuasive than another's. Id. at 1023 (quoting Barren Creek , 111 F.3d at 354 ).8 Instead, an administrative law judge must use his or her expertise to evaluate the expert opinions. See id. at 1022-23.
Judge Malamphy's decision failed to provide an adequate explanation. The relevant portion of his written decision consisted almost entirely of summaries of the medical evidence and block quotations from the physicians' reports. See Petitioner's Opening Br., Attachment A at 6-15. Following the summaries and block quotations, Judge Malamphy stated that Energy West had successfully rebutted the 15-year presumption:
readings were negative for pneumoconiosis. Further, the medical opinion evidence does not support a finding of legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rockwood Cas. Ins. Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs
...pneumoconiosis is a substantially contributing cause of the total disability (disability causation). Energy W. Mining Co. v. Estate of Blackburn , 857 F.3d 817, 822 (10th Cir. 2017) ; see also 30 U.S.C. §§ 902, 921 ; 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.202(d)(2), 718.204(c)(1).Below, we discuss four additiona......
-
Groves v. Arch On The Green, Inc., BRB 20-0170 BLA
... ... Claimant worked in strip mining for sixteen years, and ... summarized Claimant's hearing testimony ... Stallard , 876 F.3d 663, 671-74 (4th Cir. 2017); ... Energy West Mining Co. v. Estate of ... Blackburn , 857 F.3d 817, 828-29 ... ...
-
Castle v. Price Coal Co.
... ... Adams , 694 F.3d 798, 801-02 (6th Cir. 2012); ... see also Energy West Mining Co. v. Estate of ... Blackburn, 857 F.3d 817, 830-31 ... ...
-
Greathouse v. Old Ben Coal Co.
... ... totally disabled and unable to perform his usual coal mining ... work. Decision and Order at 26-27; Director's Exhibit 11; ... credibility of the physicians' opinions. Energy W ... Mining Co. v. Estate of Blackburn , 857 F.3d 817, 831 ... ...