West Virginia CWP Fund v. Stacy

• Decision Date: 21 December 2011
• Docket Number: No. 11–1020.,11–1020.
• Citation: 671 F.3d 378
• Parties: WEST VIRGINIA CWP FUND, as carrier for Olga Coal Company, Petitioner, v. Elsie L. STACY, surviving spouse of Howard W. Stacy; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Respondents.Association of Bituminous Contractors, Incorporated; Old Republic Insurance Company, Amici Supporting Petitioner,United Mine Workers of America; Timothy Christopher MacDonnell, Esq., Amici Supporting Respondents.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

671 F.3d 378

WEST VIRGINIA CWP FUND, as carrier for Olga Coal Company, Petitioner,

v.Elsie L. STACY, surviving spouse of Howard W. Stacy; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Respondents.Association of Bituminous Contractors, Incorporated; Old Republic Insurance Company, Amici Supporting Petitioner,United Mine Workers of America; Timothy Christopher MacDonnell, Esq., Amici Supporting Respondents.

No. 11–1020.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: Oct. 25, 2011.Decided: Dec. 7, 2011.Amended Dec. 21, 2011.

Recognized as Repealed by Implication

Black Lung Benefits Act, §§ 401, 411(a), 412(a)(2), 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901, 921(a), 922(a)(2)ARGUED: Kathy Lynn Snyder, Jackson Kelly, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Ryan Christopher Gilligan, Wolfe, Williams, Rutherford & Reynolds, Norton, Virginia; Sean Gregory Bajkowski, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. ON BRIEF: Wendy G. Adkins, Jackson Kelly, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph E. Wolfe, Wolfe, Williams, Rutherford & Reynolds, Norton, Virginia, for Respondent Stacy. M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor, Maia S. Fisher, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Federal Respondent. Mary Lou Smith, Howe, Anderson & Steyer, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Association of Bituminous Contractors, Amicus Supporting Petitioner. Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Old Republic Insurance Company, Amicus Supporting Petitioner. Arthur Traynor, International Union, United Mine Workers of America, Triangle, Virginia, for United Mine Workers of America, Amicus Supporting Respondent. Timothy C. MacDonnell, Micah P.S. Jost, Student Caseworker, Jacob L. Triolo, Student Caseworker, Washington and Lee University School of Law, Black Lung Legal Clinic, Lexington, Virginia, for Timothy Christopher MacDonnell, Amicus Supporting Respondent.

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge WILKINSON wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge TRAXLER and Judge WYNN joined.

OPINION

WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:

This case involves a widow's claim for survivors' benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (“BLBA”), 30 U.S.C. §§ 901–944, as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”), Pub.L. No. 111–148, § 1556, 124 Stat. 119, 260 (2010). The PPACA amendments revived Section 422( l ) of the BLBA, 30 U.S.C. § 932( l ), which provides that an eligible survivor of a miner who was receiving benefits at the time of his death is automatically entitled to survivors' benefits without having to establish that the miner's death was due to pneumoconiosis. Relying on amended § 932( l ), the Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) ruled that the widow, Elsie Stacy, was entitled to survivors' benefits. On appeal, petitioner West Virginia Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis Fund subjects the PPACA's restoration provision to a variety of constitutional and statutory challenges. Finding no merit in these attacks, we now affirm.

I.

A.

The black lung benefits program was originally enacted in 1969 to provide benefits for miners totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mine employment. Pneumoconiosis is a chronic lung disease or impairment arising out of such employment. See 20 C.F.R. § 718.201(a). The statute, now known as the Black Lung Benefits Act, also provides survivors' benefits for miners' dependents.

Congress has recalibrated the program's eligibility requirements for survivors several times since its inception. As initially enacted, the program required a survivor to prove entitlement by showing either that the miner's death was caused by pneumoconiosis or that the miner was totally disabled by pneumoconiosis at the time of his death. See 30 U.S.C. § 901 (1976). In 1977, Congress introduced BLBA Section 422( l ), 30 U.S.C. § 932( l ), which provided that “[i]n no case shall the eligible survivors of a miner who was determined to be eligible to receive benefits under this title at the time of his or her death be required to file a new claim for benefits, or refile or otherwise revalidate the claim of such miner.” Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977, Pub.L. No. 95–239, § 7(h), 92 Stat. 95, 100 (1978). Under this provision, the eligible survivors of a miner who had been awarded disability benefits on a claim filed during his lifetime were automatically entitled to survivors' benefits.

Congress significantly tightened the BLBA's eligibility requirements in 1981. For one thing, the 1981 amendments added limiting language to 30 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(2) and 932( l ) that effectively abolished automatic survivors' benefits going forward. Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1981, Pub.L. No. 97–119, §§ 203(a)(1), 203(a)(6), 95 Stat. 1635, 1643–44 (1981). The amendments also restricted the availability of benefits for survivors of miners totally disabled by pneumoconiosis by adding similar limiting language to 30 U.S.C. § 921(a). Id. § 203(a)(5), 95 Stat. at 1644. Moreover, they removed from the BLBA's general purpose section, 30 U.S.C. § 901, language indicating that one purpose of the Act was to provide benefits to survivors of miners “who were totally disabled by [pneumoconiosis] at the time of their deaths....” Id. § 203(a)(4), 95 Stat. at 1644. As a result of these amendments, survivors could generally only obtain benefits by proving that pneumoconiosis caused a miner's death. Finally, the 1981 amendments eliminated the “15–year presumption,” BLBA Section 411(c)(4), 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4), a rebuttable presumption benefiting miners who were employed in an underground coal mine for 15 years or more. Id. § 202(b)(1)(2), 95 Stat. at 1643.

In 2010, Congress once again recalibrated the BLBA's eligibility requirements by enacting Section 1556 of the PPACA. See Pub.L. No. 111–148, § 1556, 124 Stat. 119, 260 (2010). Section 1556(a) of the Act revived the 15–year presumption. Further, Section 1556(b) reinstated automatic survivors' benefits by removing from 30 U.S.C. § 932( l ) the limiting language that had been added in 1981. The PPACA did not, however, eliminate the corresponding language from §§ 921(a) and 922(a)(2), nor did it alter the wording of § 901. Finally, Section 1556(c) of the PPACA provides the effective date for Sections 1556(a) and 1556(b), restricting their application to “claims filed ... after January 1, 2005, that are pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act.” Id. § 1556(c).

B.

Howard Stacy mined coal in West Virginia for Olga Coal Company from 1975 until 1986. Shortly after leaving the mines, Mr. Stacy filed a claim for federal black lung benefits. The Department of Labor granted the claim, finding that Mr. Stacy was totally disabled as a result of pneumoconiosis arising from his coal mine employment. Petitioner—as insurer for Olga Coal Company—paid BLBA benefits to Mr. Stacy for 20 years until his death in January 2007.

Mr. Stacy's widow, Elsie Stacy, filed a claim for survivors' benefits on February 1, 2007. At the time she filed her claim, the applicable regulations required her to prove that pneumoconiosis caused, contributed to, or hastened her husband's death. See 20 C.F.R. § 718.205. Following a formal hearing, the ALJ ruled that Mrs. Stacy had failed to prove that her husband suffered from pneumoconiosis.¹ Accordingly, the ALJ denied the claim. Mrs. Stacy appealed the ALJ's denial to the BRB.

On March 23, 2010, while Mrs. Stacy's case was on appeal, the PPACA was enacted. Shortly after, Mrs. Stacy filed a motion with the BRB requesting that her case be remanded for a determination of benefits under the newly amended BLBA because (1) her husband was receiving benefits at the time of his death pursuant to a final award; (2) she had filed her claim after January 1, 2005; and (3) her claim was still pending on March 23, 2010, when the PPACA was enacted. See Pub.L. No. 111–148, § 1556(c), 124 Stat. 119, 260 (2010) (“The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to claims filed ... after January 1, 2005, that are pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act.”). The Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (the “Director”) agreed that Mrs. Stacy was entitled to benefits under 30 U.S.C. § 932( l ), as amended by the PPACA amendments.

Petitioner opposed Mrs. Stacy's motion, arguing that PPACA Section 1556 is unconstitutional and that the PPACA's reinstatement of automatic survivors' benefits does not apply to Mrs. Stacy's claim because the operative filing date for determining eligibility is the date the miner's claim was filed—not the date the survivor's claim was filed—and because the miner's claim here was filed before January 1, 2005, and was not pending on or after March 23, 2010.

On December 22, 2010, the BRB vacated the ALJ's decision and remanded Mrs. Stacy's claim for the entry of an award of benefits. Agreeing with the Director, the BRB held that the plain language of Section 1556(c) mandates the application of amended § 932( l ) to “all ‘claims' filed after January 1, 2005, that are pending on or after March 23, 2010,” including survivors' claims. It also rejected petitioner's argument that retroactive application of the PPACA amendments violates the Due Process and Takings Clauses, and it declined to hold the case in abeyance pending the resolution of other constitutional challenges to the PPACA. This appeal followed.²

II.

We begin with petitioner's contention that retroactive application of the automatic survivorship provision to claims filed after January 1, 2005 violates substantive due process because Congress “did not provide any legitimate purpose” for making the legislation retroactive and arbitrarily chose January 1, 2005 as the operative filing date. Petitioner's Br. at 25–26. Legislative acts “adjusting the burdens and benefits of economic life”...