Helen Mining Co. v. Elliott

• Decision Date: 14 June 2017
• Docket Number: No. 16-1058,16-1058
• Citation: 859 F.3d 226
• Parties: HELEN MINING COMPANY, Petitioner v. James E. ELLIOTT, Sr.; Director Office of Workers' Compensation Programs United States Department of Labor, Respondents
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

859 F.3d 226

HELEN MINING COMPANY, Petitioner

v.James E. ELLIOTT, Sr.^* ; DirectorOffice of Workers' Compensation Programs United States Department of Labor, Respondents

No. 16-1058

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued: September 9, 2016

Filed: June 14, 2017

Christopher Pierson, Esq.(Argued), Burns White 48 26th Street Burns White Center Pittsburgh, PA 15212, Attorney for PetitionerHelen Mining Co.

Robert J. Bilonick, Esq., Heath M. Long, Esq.(Argued), Pawlowski Bilonick & Long, 603 North Julian Street, P.O. Box 658, Ebensburg, PA 15931, Attorney for Claimant-RespondentJames E. Elliott, Sr.

Sean Bajkowski, Esq.(Argued), Rae Ellen James, Esq., Kathleen H. Kim, Esq., United States Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Room N-2117, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210, Attorney for Federal Respondent Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

Before: JORDAN, VANASKIE, and KRAUSE, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

KRAUSE, Circuit Judge.

The Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA) confers on coal workers generally the right to claim workers' compensation benefits for disabilities arising out of coal dust exposure.30 U.S.C. §§ 901 –45.Typically, the burden of proof rests on the miner to establish each element necessary for entitlement to benefits.For miners who meet particular criteria, however, the BLBA provides that certain elements will be presumed, subject to rebuttal by the party opposing benefits, i.e., by the coal mine operator-employer, if identifiable, or, alternatively, by the Secretary of Labor.30 U.S.C. § 921(c).At issue in this case is whether a 2013 regulation, specifying the standard a coal mine operator must meet to rebut the presumed element of disability causation, is ultra vires to the BLBA.See20 C.F.R. § 718.305(d)(1)(2013).For the reasons set forth below, we agree with the Benefits Review Board's conclusion that operators are subject to the regulation's rebuttal standard because the regulation permissibly fills a statutory gap in the legislation.We also agree that the record adequately supports the ALJ's conclusion that the operator did not meet that rebuttal standard in this case.Accordingly, we will affirm the award of benefits and deny the operator's petition for review.

I.Background

Coal mine operator Helen Mining Company seeks review of an award of black lung benefits to Claimant-RespondentJames E. Elliott, Sr.Before turning to the facts of this particular case, we briefly review the historical development of the relevant benefits scheme to give context to the challenges raised by Helen Mining in this appeal.

A.Statutory and Regulatory Context

In 1969, Congress passed Title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act, also known as the BLBA, to provide benefits to coal miners whose exposure to coal dust has resulted in the crippling pulmonary condition of pneumoconiosis, commonly known as "black lung."Pub. L. No. 91-173, § 401,83 Stat. 742, 792(1969)(codified as amended at 30 U.S.C. § 901);see alsoMullins Coal Co. of Va. v. Dir., OWCP , 484 U.S. 135, 138, 108 S.Ct. 427, 98 L.Ed.2d 450(1987).¹To prove entitlement to benefits, a miner must establish four elements: (1) disease, i.e., he has pneumoconiosis ; (2) disease causation, i.e., the pneumoconiosis arose out of dust exposure from his coal mine employment; (3) disability, i.e., he has a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment that prevents him from performing coal mining or comparable work; and (4) disability causation, i.e., pneumoconiosis is a "substantially contributing cause" of his disability.20 C.F.R. §§ 718.204(C)(1),725.202(d)(2)(citing20 C.F.R. §§ 718.201 –718.204 );see alsoDir., OWCP v. Mangifest , 826 F.2d 1318, 1320(3d Cir.1987).BLBA benefits were initially administered by the Social Security Administration, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the then-Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, and were paid from federal funds.30 U.S.C. §§ 921 –24;Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc. , 501 U.S. 680, 683–84, 111 S.Ct. 2524, 115 L.Ed.2d 604(1991).Today, such claims for BLBA benefits are administered by the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Secretary of Labor.30 U.S.C. §§ 902(c),932;Mullins , 484 U.S. at 139, 108 S.Ct. 427.

Congress has amended the BLBA in numerous respects over the years, but three have particular relevance to this appeal.First, in an effort to relax the burden on miners to prove entitlement to benefits, the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972added a provision establishing that any miner who can prove he worked fifteen years or more in an underground coal mine and can establish the third element—that he is disabled—is entitled to "a rebuttable presumption that [he] is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis" and is therefore entitled to black lung benefits.Pub. L. No. 92-303, § 4(c),86 Stat. 150, 154(codified at 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4) )(hereinafter "the § 921(c)(4) presumption");Pauley , 501 U.S. at 685, 111 S.Ct. 2524.²In essence, if a miner could prove qualifying employment and disability, then the other elements, including disability causation, would be presumed to be met as well, shifting the burden to the party opposing benefits—at that point in time, the Secretary—to rebut the presumption by means specified in § 921(c)(4).As to the element of disability causation, for example, § 921(c)(4) specified that the Secretary may rebut by "establishing that ... [the miner's] respiratory or pulmonary impairment did not arise out of, or in connection with, employment in a coal mine."30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4)(B);see alsoPauley , 501 U.S. at 685–86, 111 S.Ct. 2524.³

Second, the BLBA from its inception had anticipated a gradual transition to the processing of claims by approved state workers' compensation programs or, in the absence of an approved program, by the Secretary himself, with mine operators bearing financial responsibility for the payment of benefits.SeeFederal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, § 422, 83 Stat. 741, 796–97(codified as amended at 30 U.S.C. § 932).But the 1972 Act set the date for that transition as January 1, 1974, providing that all claims filed on or after that date would be paid not from federal funds, but by the private coal mine operator that employed the miner, seeBlack Lung Benefits Act of 1972, § 5(1), (2), 86 Stat. 150, 155(codified as amended at 30 U.S.C. § 932), and a subsequent amendment ensured that if a responsible operator could not be identified, benefits would be paid by a fund, administered by the Secretary, into which mine operators would contribute.⁴Thus, from that point forward, the party opposing benefits would be not only the Secretary, but either the Secretary or the mine operator, depending on which was the payor.

Finally, in another amendment passed in 1977, Congress expanded the definition of pneumoconiosis beyond the class of clinical diseases recognized as pneumoconiosis (so-called "clinical pneumoconiosis") to include "any chronic dust disease of the lung... arising out of coal mine employment"(now referred to as "legal pneumoconiosis").Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977, Pub. L. No. 95-239, sec. 2(a), § 402(b),92 Stat. 95, 95(codified at 30 U.S.C. § 902(b) );see20 C.F.R. § 718.201(a).The upshot of this amendment, when considered together with § 921(c)(4), was that the disease and disease causation elements overlapped, so if the Secretary could not rebut the presumption by proving that the miner did not have a disease "arising out of coal mine employment"(elements one and two), 30 U.S.C. § 902(b);seesupra note 3, then he could only rebut disability causation by showing that the miner's impairment did not result from that disease (element four).See30 U.S.C. § 902(b).

Soon after these amendments took effect, however, "the number of black lung benefit claims soared,"B & G Constr. Co. v. Dir., OWCP , 662 F.3d 233, 242(3d Cir.2011), leading Congress to reverse course and amend the § 921(c)(4) presumption so that it would no longer apply to claims filed on or after January 1, 1982, seeBlack Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1981, Pub. L. No. 97, § 202(b)(1),95 Stat. 1635, 1643.For the next several decades, miners applying for benefits under the Act could not claim the benefit of the § 921(c)(4) presumption.

With the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, however, Congress changed its mind once more and revived the § 921(c)(4) presumption for all claims filed after January 1, 2005 that were still pending on or after March 23, 2010.Pub. L. No. 111-148, § 1556(a), (c),124 Stat. 119, 260 (2010).For the reasons explained, the party opposing benefits at this point in time could be either the Secretary or the mine operator.However, when Congress reinstated § 921(c)(4), it did not alter the original language of that provision.Thus, while the presumption would apply to any qualifying miner as against any opposing party, the statute still specified only how "the Secretary"—originally, the only opposing party—could rebut the presumed elements, and made no explicit provision for rebuttal by operators.

The following year, the Department of Labor promulgated a regulation to fill that gap and to expound on the rebuttal standard.20 C.F.R. § 718.305(2013)(hereinafter "the Regulation");see also Regulations Implementing the Byrd Amendments to the Black Lung Benefits Act: Determining Coal Miners' and Survivors' Entitlement to Benefits, 78 Fed. Reg. 59,102, 59,106 –07(Sept. 25, 2013).⁵The Regulation thus prescribes the means of rebuttal for any "party opposing entitlement" to benefits, encompassing both the Secretary and mine operators.20 C.F.R. § 718.305(d)(1)(2013).And to rebut the presumed element of disability causation, the Regulation specifies that, short of disproving the presence of disease,⁶ such opposing party must "[e]stablish[ ] that no part of the miner's...