Roberts & Schaefer v. Office, Workers Comp.

• Decision Date: 14 March 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04-2030.,04-2030.
• Citation: 400 F.3d 992
• Parties: ROBERTS & SCHAEFER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS and William L. Williams, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

400 F.3d 992

ROBERTS & SCHAEFER COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS and William L. Williams, Respondents.

No. 04-2030.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued December 8, 2004.

Decided March 14, 2005.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Mary Lou Smith (argued), Howe, Anderson & Steyer, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.

Rita Roppolo (argued), Department of Labor, Office of the Solicitor, Washington, DC, Anne M. Davis (argued), Johnson, Jones, Snelling, Gilbert & Davis, Chicago, IL, for Respondents.

Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and POSNER and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

FLAUM, Chief Judge.

An administrative law judge ("ALJ") ordered petitioner Roberts & Schaefer Company ("R&S") to pay benefits to respondent William L. Williams under the Black Lung Benefits Act ("BLBA"), 30 U.S.C. § 901 et seq. Following affirmance by the Benefits Review Board, R&S petitioned this Court for review. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

I. Background

Respondent Williams was a coal miner in the traditional sense for little more than three years but he worked in coal mine construction for much longer. Petitioner R&S employed Williams between 1974 and 1984 as a laborer, demolishing old tipples and other mining structures and repairing and building new ones. After 1984, Williams worked for other companies in various mining and non-mining jobs until he retired in 1991 at the age of 58. Williams was also a smoker. He quit in 1999 after smoking approximately one pack of cigarettes per day for 46 years.

Williams first received treatment for respiratory problems in 1991. Over the course of the next decade, he saw several different doctors about his worsening condition. One of the first doctors he consulted was Dr. Harold Johnson, whose notes, dating from 1991 to 1995, refer to a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), but do not indicate the cause of the condition. In 1992, Drs. Mason Baker and Carroll Boyle, also without opining on etiology, each diagnosed Williams with emphysema.

In November 1998, Williams filed an application for pneumoconiosis benefits with the Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs ("OWCP"). Within a month, the OWCP's district director notified Amax Coal Company that it had been designated the responsible operator liable for the payment of any benefits due to Williams.¹ In March of the following year, Williams saw Dr. Reynaldo Carandang who, after examining him and evaluating his employment and smoking history, concluded that Williams was totally disabled by COPD due to coal dust exposure and smoking. Despite Dr. Carandang's report, the OWCP denied Williams's claim three months later. Williams sought reconsideration through the modification procedure set forth in 20 C.F.R. § 725.310 in May 2000. In June, after determining that Amax Coal had been named in error, the district director notified R&S that it was the responsible operator in Williams's case. In November, the OWCP denied Williams's request for modification.

Understanding that Williams would not be precluded from filing another modification request, R&S sent him to be examined by Dr. Jeff Selby, who diagnosed COPD and asthma and opined that Williams's condition was caused by smoking and untreated asthma. He reasoned that, because Williams's lung function continued to deteriorate even after he retired, the COPD was not "at all related to coal dust exposure." Also noting that Williams was unable to smoke while working at the coal mines, Dr. Selby stated that, "[c]learly coal mines actually probably helped preserve this man's lung function, not allowing him to smoke while there, and this had a much more significant positive effect on his health, than whatever small amount of negative effect of breathing in coal mine dust may have had." This opinion was later contradicted by Dr. David Marder, who examined Williams and found him to be totally disabled by COPD "due in substantial part to coal dust exposure," and Dr. Robert Cohen, who concluded from a review of Williams's file that he was totally disabled by pneumoconiosis due to both coal dust exposure and smoking.

Williams requested that his claim for pneumoconiosis benefits be transferred to the Office of Administrative Law Judges and, on January 28, 2003, following a formal hearing, an ALJ granted modification and ordered R&S to pay BLBA benefits to Williams. The ALJ's decision and order were affirmed by the Benefits Review Board. R&S has petitioned this Court for review.

II. Discussion

When a party appeals a final decision of the Benefits Review Board, "our task is to review the ALJ's decision which the Board affirmed." Old Ben Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP, 292 F.3d 533, 538 (7th Cir.2002) (internal quotations omitted). "We do so under a deferential standard of review: We will not overturn the ALJ's decision if it is rational, supported by substantial evidence and consistent with governing law." Id. We affirm an ALJ's factual findings "if they are supported by relevant evidence that a rational mind might accept as adequate to support a decision." Zeigler Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP, 326 F.3d 894, 897 (7th Cir.2003) (internal quotations omitted). "We do not reweigh the evidence, resolve inconsistencies in the record, make credibility determinations, or substitute our inferences for those drawn below." Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v. Summers, 272 F.3d 473, 478 (7th Cir.2001). "Though we defer to the ALJ's factual determinations, we review questions of law de novo." Gulley v. Director, OWCP, 397 F.3d 535, 538 (7th Cir.2005).

R&S asserts that Williams's claim for benefits is procedurally barred and, in the alternative, that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence. We consider each assertion in turn.

A. Procedural Bars

R&S argues that Williams's claim is barred by the BLBA's statute of limitations, the doctrine of laches, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The BLBA provides that any claim for benefits by a miner "shall be filed within three years after ... a medical determination of total disability due to pneumoconiosis." 30 U.S.C. § 932(f). The implementing regulations recognize "a rebuttable presumption that every claim for benefits is timely filed," and add that the limitations period begins to run when "a medical determination of total disability due to pneumoconiosis" is "communicated to the miner." 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.308(a), (c). The term "pneumoconiosis" is defined in the BLBA as "a chronic dust disease of the lung and its sequelae, including respiratory and pulmonary impairments, arising out of coal mine employment." 30 U.S.C. § 902(b).

R&S attempts to rebut the presumption of timeliness by arguing that Williams must have the same disease now that he had in 1992 when he saw Drs. Johnson, Baker, and Boyle and, therefore, that the statute of limitations began to run upon the first diagnosis of COPD or emphysema by one of those doctors. In other words, if Williams's current condition was caused by coal dust exposure as the ALJ found, then the COPD and emphysema diagnosed in 1992 were also caused by coal dust exposure and Williams was required to bring his claim within three years of those original diagnoses. This reasoning, however, is based on a misinterpretation of the regulation. The limitations period does not begin to run until the claimant is informed either that his respiratory or pulmonary impairment is "pneumoconiosis" or that the impairment arose out of exposure to coal dust. It is undisputed that Dr. Carandang's 1999 medical report concluding that Williams's condition was caused at least in part by exposure to coal dust was the first such determination to be communicated to Williams. Therefore, Williams's 1998 application for benefits is not time-barred.

Next, R&S claims that the equitable doctrine of laches bars Williams's claim. It contends that the lengthy gap between Williams's last day of employment with R&S and the filing of his claim compromised its ability to defend the action. A party who asserts a laches defense must show "an unreasonable lack of diligence by the party against whom the defense is asserted" and "prejudice arising therefrom." Hot Wax, Inc. v. Turtle Wax, Inc., 191 F.3d 813, 820 (7th Cir.1999). We will reverse a decision as to whether to apply the doctrine of laches only for abuse of discretion. Id. at 819. Given his finding that Williams was first diagnosed with pneumoconiosis in 1999 after he filed his claim, the ALJ correctly concluded that Williams could not have been expected to file a claim any earlier. The ALJ's finding of no lack of diligence is supported by substantial evidence and it was not an abuse of discretion to decline to apply the doctrine of laches to Williams's claim.

Finally, R&S contends that its procedural due process rights were violated by the OWCP's delay in notifying it of its potential liability as the responsible operator. R&S states that its ability to mount a meaningful defense was compromised by the delay and believes that it should not be prejudiced by the OWCP's error in initially notifying Amax Coal, rather than R&S. On this basis, R&S seeks to have liability transferred to the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.

We have recognized the general proposition that "[t]here can be no due process without `the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.'" Baird v. Bd. of Educ. for Warren Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 205, 389 F.3d 685, 690 (7th Cir.2004) (quoting Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976)). Not every delay, however, will deprive a litigant of a meaningful opportunity to be heard. For instance, in Midland Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP ["Kelly"], 120 F.3d 64 (7th Cir.1997), the responsible operator alleged a due process violation where the miner filed his claim in 1976, the...