O'Quinn v. Triple B Coal Co.
| Docket Number | BRB 22-0370 BLA,22-0371 BLA |
| Decision Date | 28 September 2023 |
| Parties | SHARON R. O'QUINN (o/b/o and Widow of CARLOS W. O'QUINN) Claimant-Petitioner v. TRIPLE B COAL COMPANY Employer-Respondent DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Party-in-Interest |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Black Lung Complaints |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal of the Decision and Order Denying Benefits of Jodeen M Hobbs, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of Labor.
Sharon R. O'Quinn, Lebanon, Virginia.
Michael A. Pusateri (Greenberg Traurig, LLP), Washington D.C., for Employer.
Before: GRESH, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, BOGGS and BUZZARD, Administrative Appeals Judges.
DECISION AND ORDER
Claimant appeals, without representation,[1] Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jodeen M. Hobbs's Decision and Order Denying Benefits (2020-BLA-05581 and 2021-BLA-05196) rendered on claims filed pursuant to the Black Lung Benefits Act, as amended, 30 U.S.C. §§901-944 (2018) (Act). This case involves a miner's subsequent claim filed on June 7 2018,[2] and a survivor's claim filed on December 6, 2019.[3]
The ALJ found Claimant did not establish the Miner had complicated pneumoconiosis and therefore could not invoke the irrebuttable presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis at Section 411(c)(3) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(3); see 20 C.F.R. §718.304. She also credited the Miner with 11.92 years of underground coal mine employment based on the parties' stipulation and thus found Claimant could not invoke the rebuttable presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis at Section 411(c)(4) of the Act,[4] 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(4) (2018). Considering entitlement under 20 C.F.R. Part 718, she found Claimant established total disability and therefore a change in an applicable condition of entitlement.[5] 20 C.F.R. §§718.204(b)(2), 725.309(c). However, she found Claimant did not establish the Miner had clinical pneumoconiosis or legal pneumoconiosis and thus denied benefits in the miner's claim.
Further, the ALJ determined that because the Miner was not entitled to benefits at the time of his death, Claimant is not automatically entitled to survivor's benefits under Section 422(l) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. §932(l) (2018).[6] Because she also found Claimant did not establish the Miner had clinical pneumoconiosis or legal pneumoconiosis, 20 C.F.R. §§718.202(a), 718.304, she denied benefits in the survivor's claim.
On appeal, Claimant generally challenges the denial of benefits. Employer responds in support of the denial. The Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, has not filed a response brief.
In an appeal a claimant files without representation, the Board considers whether the Decision and Order below is supported by substantial evidence. Hodges v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 18 BLR 1-84, 1-86 (1994). We must affirm the ALJ's findings of fact and conclusions of law if they are rational, supported by substantial evidence, and in accordance with applicable law.[7] 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(3), as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. §932(a); O'Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman &Grylls Assocs., Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965).
Section 411(c)(3) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(3), provides an irrebuttable presumption that a miner was totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis if he suffered from a chronic dust disease of the lung which: (a) when diagnosed by x-ray, yields one or more large opacities greater than one centimeter in diameter that would be classified as Category A, B, or C; (b) when diagnosed by biopsy or autopsy, yields massive lesions in the lung; or (c) when diagnosed by other means is a condition that would yield results equivalent to (a) or (b). 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(3); see 20 C.F.R. §718.304. The ALJ must determine whether the evidence in each category tends to establish the existence of complicated pneumoconiosis and then weigh together the evidence at subsections (a), (b), and (c) before determining whether Claimant has invoked the irrebuttable presumption. Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cox, 602 F.3d 276, 283 (4th Cir. 2010); E. Associated Coal Corp. v. Director, OWCP [Scarbro], 220 F.3d 250, 255-56 (4th Cir. 2000); Melnick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 16 BLR 1-31, 1-33-34 (1991) (en banc).
The ALJ found the x-rays insufficient to support a finding of complicated pneumoconiosis, there is no biopsy or autopsy evidence, and that no physician diagnosed the disease on computed tomography (CT) scans, in medical opinions, or in the Miner's treatment records. 20 C.F.R. §718.304(a)-(c); Decision and Order at 12-21.
X-ray Evidence at 20 C.F.R. §718.304(a)
The ALJ considered five readings of two x-rays dated May 9, 2018, and August 1, 2018. All of the interpreting physicians are dually qualified as Board-certified radiologists and B readers. Decision and Order at 13-14. Dr. Adcock read the May 9, 2018 x-ray as negative for simple and complicated pneumoconiosis. Miner's Claim (MC) Employer's Exhibit 4. Dr. Crum read the August 1, 2018 x-ray as positive for complicated pneumoconiosis, category A large opacity, while Dr. DePonte read the x-ray as positive for simple pneumoconiosis only. MC Director's Exhibit 22; MC Claimant's Exhibit 1. Drs. Adcock and Simone each read the August 1, 2018 x-ray as negative for simple and complicated pneumoconiosis. MC Director's Exhibit 28; MC Employer's Exhibit 8.
The ALJ found Dr. Adcock's uncontradicted negative reading of the May 9, 2018 x-ray does not support a finding of complicated pneumoconiosis. Decision and Order at 14. With respect to the August 1, 2018 x-ray, she found Dr. Crum was the only physician to identify complicated pneumoconiosis but he failed to "offer a definitive conclusion about the presence, location, or cause" of the large opacity. Id. Further, she noted that while Dr. DePonte read the x-ray as positive for simple pneumoconiosis, the doctor did not diagnose complicated pneumoconiosis or find evidence of large opacities. Id. She additionally noted that Drs. Adcock and Simone each read the August 1, 2018 x-ray as negative for pneumoconiosis. She thus determined the August 1, 2018 x-ray does not support a finding of complicated pneumoconiosis. Id. Because it is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the ALJ's finding that the x-ray evidence does not support a finding of complicated pneumoconiosis. 20 C.F.R. §718.304(a); see Sea "B" Mining Co. v. Addison, 831 F.3d 244, 256-57 (4th Cir. 2016); Adkins v. Director, OWCP, 958 F.2d 49, 52-53 (4th Cir. 1992); Decision and Order at 14.
As the record is devoid of any other evidence relevant to the presence of complicated pneumoconiosis, progressive massive fibrosis, or massive lesions, we affirm the ALJ's finding that Claimant failed to establish the existence of complicated pneumoconiosis. 20 C.F.R. §718.304(a)-(c); see Cox, 602 F.3d at 283; Scarbro, 220 F.3d at 256; Melnick, 16 BLR at 1-33-34. Thus, we affirm her finding that Claimant did not invoke the irrebuttable presumption at Section 411(c)(3).
Without the benefit of the Section 411(c)(4) presumption,[8] Claimant must establish disease (pneumoconiosis); disease causation (it arose out of coal mine employment); disability (a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment); and disability causation (pneumoconiosis substantially contributed to the disability). 30 U.S.C. §901; 20 C.F.R. §§718.3, 718.202, 718.203, 718.204. Failure to establish any one of these elements precludes an award of benefits. Anderson v. Valley Camp of Utah, Inc., 12 BLR 1-111, 1112 (1989); Trent v. Director, OWCP, 11 BLR 1-26, 1-27 (1987); Perry v. Director, OWCP, 9 BLR 1-1 (1986) (en banc).
Initially, we address Employer's argument that the ALJ erred in finding Claimant established total disability. A miner is considered to have been totally disabled if his pulmonary or respiratory impairment, standing alone, prevented him from performing his usual coal mine work and comparable gainful work. See 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(1). A claimant may establish total disability based on qualifying pulmonary function studies or arterial blood gas studies,[9] evidence of pneumoconiosis and cor pulmonale with right-sided congestive heart failure, or medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2)(i)-(iv). The ALJ must weigh all relevant supporting evidence against all relevant contrary evidence. See Rafferty v. Jones &Laughlin Steel Corp., 9 BLR 1-231, 1-232 (1987); Shedlock v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 9 BLR 1-195, 1-198 (1986), aff'd on recon., 9 BLR 1-236 (1987) (en banc).
The ALJ found Claimant established total disability based on the arterial blood gas study and medical opinion evidence, and the evidence as a whole.[10] 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2)(ii), (iv); Decision and Order at 8, 11.
The ALJ considered the new arterial blood gas study dated August 1 2018. Decision and Order at 7-8. She correctly determined this study produced qualifying results at rest. Id. at 8; MC Director's Exhibit 22 at 18. She thus found the arterial blood gas study evidence supports a finding of total disability.
Employer argues the ALJ erred in failing to explain why "a single qualifying" arterial blood gas study "outweighed non-qualifying pulmonary function tests and another non-qualifying arterial blood gas test in the record." Employer's Brief at 12. We disagree.
In the absence of contrary probative evidence, an ALJ may rely on a single valid qualifying objective study to find total disability established. See 20 C.F.R §718.204(b)(2) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial