Sexton v. Mathews, 76-1126
| Decision Date | 10 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-1126,76-1126 |
| Citation | 538 F.2d 88 |
| Parties | Robert SEXTON, Appellant, v. F. David MATHEWS, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Robert T. Winston, Norton, Va., for appellant.
William Reinhart, Asst. Regional Atty. (Stephanie W. Naidoff, Regional Atty., Region III, Office of Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Paul R Thomson, Jr., U. S. Atty., and E. Montgomery Tucker, Roanoke, Va., Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.
Before BUTZNER, Circuit Judge, FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, and WYZANSKI, Senior District Judge. *
Robert Sexton, concededly suffering from pneumoconiosis, appeals from a judgment of the district court that he is not entitled to the black lung benefits provided by the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. ** The Secretary found, and the district court agreed, that the Act did not afford coverage to a person engaged in manufacturing coke, even though his job exposed him to coal dust and his employer was a mining company. We affirm on this aspect of Sexton's claim but remand the case for further proceedings concerning other work Sexton did.
The 1972 Amendments provide benefits to a miner who is disabled by pneumoconiosis as a result of extracting or preparing coal. 30 U.S.C. §§ 901 et seq. The Secretary ruled that Sexton's job of making coke was not related to the extraction or preparation of coal. His duties, the Appeals Council wrote, "were associated with the utilization of the coal for some separate industrial process after it had been extracted and prepared by the coal mine operation."
Obviously, Sexton was not employed in extracting coal. Whether he was engaged in preparation of coal is a closer question. The 1972 Amendments do not describe the work included in preparing coal. The 1969 Act, however, contains a definition which we believe is applicable. There, "work of preparing the coal" is defined as "the breaking, crushing, sizing, cleaning, washing, drying, mixing, storing, and loading of bituminous coal, lignite, or anthracite, and such other work of preparing such coal as is usually done by the operator of the coal mine." 30 U.S.C. § 802(i). Sexton's job of putting coal in the coke ovens, leveling the coal within the oven, pulling the coke from the oven, and shoveling the finished coke for shipment cannot be classified as the preparation of coal as defined by the Act. We therefore conclude that Sexton's work at the coke ovens does not qualify him for benefits. Cf. Johnson v. Weinberger, 389 F.Supp. 1296 (S.D.W.Va.1974).
The record also discloses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyant v. Peabody Coal Co.
... ... employment, see Sexton v. Mathews , 538 F.2d 88, 89 ... (4th Cir. 1976) ... As the ... ...
-
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Dept. of Labor v. Ziegler Coal Co.
...ore mine power plant); Southard, 732 F.2d 66 (employee unloaded coal from railroad cars into trucks for coal retailers); Sexton v. Mathews, 538 F.2d 88 (4th Cir.1976) (employee shoveled coal into coke oven); Johnson v. Weinberger, 389 F.Supp. 1296 (S.D.W.Va.1974) (employee at chemical plant......
-
Hylton v. Itmann/Consolidation Coal Co.
... ... preparation process cannot yet be complete. Sexton v ... Mathews , 538 F.2d 88 (4th Cir. 1976) (shoveling coal ... from tipple into lorry ... ...
-
Coleman v. Jewell Coal & Coke Corp., BRB 15-0338 BLA
...not used in the coke ovens” and that the coal drying process was still within the control of the tipple.[5] Id. at [9-10]. In addition, in Sexton, the Fourth Circuit held the mere fact that a miner performed some of his duties at a coke oven did not preclude him from establishing that the r......