2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit 7-20-2006 

# Hrutka y v . D irec tor OWC P P re c e de nt i al or N on-P re c e de nt i al : N on-P re c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-2992

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s brou ght t o you for f re e and ope n a c c e s s by the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Third C irc uit at V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s by an authori z e d a dmini s trat or of V ill anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or more inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vill anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Hrutka y v . Dire ct or O WC P " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 724. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2006/724NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 05- 2992 L OI S B. HR UT KAY ( W i d o w o f

E d w a r d J . H ru t k a y) v. DI RE CT OR , OF F I CE OF WORKE RS ’ CO M P E NS AT I ON P ROGRAM S , UNI TE D ST ATE S DEP ARTM ENT OF L ABOR;

BETH ENER GY M I NES, I NC OR PORA TED

L o i s B . H ru t k a y,

Pet i t i oner O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on and O r der o f th e B en ef

it s R ev iew B o ard ( BR B N o . 0 4 - 0 7 1 7 BL A) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ar ch 31, 2006 B E F O R E : S M ITH and C O W E N , C i rcui tJudg es, and A C K E R M A N *, D i s tr i ctJ udge ( Fi l ed J ul y20, 2006)

*H onor abl e H ar ol d A . A ckerm an, Seni orU ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2 OP I NI ON C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udge. B ef o re u s is a P eti ti o n fo r R ev iew o f th e d ec isi o n o f th e B en ef it s R ev iew B o ard (B R B ) af firm ing the d en ial b ythe A d m inistrati v e L aw Ju d g e (A L J) of L o is H rutk ay ’s c la im f o r s u rv iv o r’ s b e n e f

its u n d e r t h e B la c k L u n g B e n e f its A c t, 3 0 U .S .C . § § 9 0 1 -9 4 5 . T h e A L J d e n ied h e r c laim f o r su rv iv o r’s b e n e f

its o n th e g ro u n d s th a t p n e u m o c o n io sis d id n o t c o n tr ib u te to th e d e a th o f h e r h u s b a n d , E d w a rd H ru tk a y . W e w ill a f f ir m . I. T he A L J and B R B s etforth the bac kgr ound of the mat t eri n thei rr es pect i ve d ec isi o n s, an d as w e w ri te so lel yfo r th e p arti es, w e n ee d n o t go into g rea ter de tai l. M r. H rutkayw orked as a coa l m i nerforaboutfortyy ear s . H e s m oked ci gar ett es for appr oxi m at el yfi ftyy ear s and qui ts m oki ng s even y ear s pr i ort o hi s death. I n the l as tni ne m onths of l i fe, he w as hos pi t al i zed on mul t i pl e occ as i ons fora var i etyof m edi cal pr obl ems, i ncl udi ng chr oni c obs truct i ve pul m onarydi s eas e, conges t i ve hea r tfai l ur e, and c o ro n a rya rte ryd ise a se . H ru tk a yd ied o n A p ril 1 0 , 2 0 0 2 , an d a c c o rd in g to h is d e a th c e rtific a te, th e c a u se o f d e a th w a s c o ro n a rya rte ryd ise a se . T h e d e a th c e rtific a te a lso lists chr oni c obs truct i ve pul m onarydi s eas e and pe r i pher al vas cul ardi s eas e as othercondi t i ons c o n tr ib u tin g to h is d e a th .3

D u rin g th e h e a rin g , the A L J c o n sid e re d , inte r a lia, th e e x p e rt re p o rts o f D r. C yril W e c h t, a p a th o lo g is t w h o c o n d u c te d M r. H ru tk a y ’s a u to p s y ; D r. R ic h a rd N a e y e , a pathol ogi s t ; and D r . R obertA l tm ey er , a pul m onol ogi s t . D r . W echtopi ned that p n eu m o co n iosis w as a su b stan ti al ca u se o f M r. H rutk ay ’s de ath. D r. N ae y e a n d D r. A l tm ey er foun d thatM r. H rutkay ’s pn eum oco niosi s w as t oo m i l d to be a sub st anti al cause o f h is d e a th . A f

terre v iew in g a ll o f

th e e v id e n c e , the A L J u lti m a telyc re d ited th e re p o rts o f D r. N a e y e a n d D r. A ltm e y e r a n d d e n ie d M s . H ru tk a yb e n e f its . II . W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h is b la c k lu n g b e n e f its a p p e a l p u rs u a n t to 3 0 U .S .C . § 9 3 2 ( a ) . S e e L u k o s e v i c z v . D i r e c t o r , O WC P , 8 8 8 F . 2 d 1 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 3 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 8 9 ) . We re v iew th e B R B ’s d e c isio n f o r e rro rs o f

law a n d to e n su re th a t th e B R B h a s a d h e re d to its s c o p e o f r e v i e w . S e e O r a v i t z v . D i r e c t o r , O WC P , 8 4 3 F . 2 d 7 3 8 , 7 3 9 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 8 8 ) . We m u st co n d u ct an ind ep en d en t r ev iew o f th e re co rd a n d “d ec ide w h ethe r th e A L J’s fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” Sun Shi pbui l di ng & D ryD ock C o. v. M cC abe, 593 F. 2d 234, 237 ( 3d C i r . 1979) . “‘ Subst ant i al evi dence ’ has been de fi ned as

‘ m or e than a mer e s ci nt i l l a. I tm eans s uch r el evantevi dence as a r eas onabl e mi nd m i ght acc eptas adequa t e t o s uppor ta conc l us i on. ’ ” K ow al chi ck v. D i r ect or , O W C P, 893 F. 2d 6 1 5 , 6 1 9 -2 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ). T o b e e n tit led to su rv iv o r’s b e n e f its, the p e tit io n e r m u st p ro v e th a t H ru tk a y ’s d e a th w a s “ d u e to p n e u m o c o n io s is ” a ri s in g o u t o f h is e m p lo ym e n t in c o a l m in e s . 3 0 U .S .C . §4

90 1(a) . “D eath w i l l be co nsi dered d ue to pne um oco niosi s” i f “pn eum oco niosi s w as a s u b s ta n tia lly c o n tr ib u tin g c a u s e o r f a c to r l e a d in g to th e m in e r’ s d e a th . . . .” 2 0 C .F .R . § 7 1 8 .2 0 5 (c )(2 ). P n e u m o c o n io sis is a su b sta n tiallyc o n trib u tin g c a u se o f d e a th if it ac tu a lly

“ h a s te n s d e a th .” L u k o s e v ic z , 8 8 8 F .2 d a t 1 0 0 6 . M s. H ru tk a yf

irst a rg u e s th a t th e A L J c o m m itt e d e rro r w h e n h e “ a u to m a tica lly ac ce p ted” an d “m ec h an icall yassig n ed ” m o re w eigh t t o the o p inion s o f D r. N ae y e a n d D r. Al tme y e rth a tp n e u moc o n i o s i s d i d n o tc o n tr i b u t e t o o rh a s t e n Hr u t k a y ’ s d e a th . An ALJ has a s t atut orydutyt o anal y ze “ ‘ al l of the r el evantevi dence ’ and t o pr ovi de a s uffi ci ent expl anat i on forhi s ‘ r at i onal e i n cr edi t i ng cert ai n evi dence . ’ ” B i l l B r anch Coal C orp. v. Sp a rk s , 2 1 3 F. 3 d 1 8 6 , 1 9 0 ( 4 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) . I n th e p r e s e n tc a s e , th e ALJ p ro v id e d sp e c if

ic r e a so n s w h yh e d isc re d ited D r. W e c h t’s re p o rt a n d c re d ited th e re p o rts o f D r. N ae y e a n d D r. A ltm ey er. T h e A L J n o ted th at D r. N ae y e re v iew ed M r. H rutk ay ’s m e d ica l re c o rd s a n d th e slid e s f ro m th e a u to p sy . D r. N a e y e f o u n d m o d e ra telyse v e re to s e v e r e c e n tr i l o b u l a re mp h y s e ma a n d s e v e r e n e c r o t i z i n g p n e u mo n i a i n th e l u n g s l i d e s . He al so fou nd m i l d to m od erat el ysevere chroni c bronc hit i s and v erym i l d co al w orkers ’ pneumoconi os i s . D r . N aey e conc l uded thatH rutkay ’ s pul m onaryi m pai r m ent s w er e due t o hi s heavys m oki ng, nothi s expos ur e t o coal dus t . T he ca us es of dea th w er e nec r ot i zi ng p n e u m o n ia a n d a re c e n t m y o c a rd ia l in f a rc tio n . T he A L J al s o not ed thatD r . A l t m ey err evi ew ed H rutkay ’ s m edi cal r ecor ds and c o n c lu d e d th a t th e c a u se o f d e a th w a s c o ro n a rya rte ryd ise a se w ith p n e u m o n ia a lik e ly5

contr i but i ng caus e. H e conc l uded thatH rutkay ’ s pul m onarys ym pt om s and abnorm al i t i es w e re f a r t o o s e v e re to b e a ttr ib u te d to th e m in im a l d e g re e o f p n e u m o c o n io s is . T he A L J al s o di s cus s ed D r . W echt ’ s tw o r eport s . I n D r . W echt ’ s fi r s tr eport , he opi ned thatH rutkays uffe r ed fr om pneumoconi os i s , w hi ch w as confi r m ed by , i nt eral i a, h is a u to p syf

in d in g s. H e o p in e d th a t p n e u m o c o n io sis w a s th e b a sis f o r H ru tk a y ’s c h ro n ic obs truct i ve pul m onarydi s eas e and w as a s ubs t ant i al contr i but i ng fac t ori n hi s death. T he A L J not ed thatD r . W echt ’ s fi r s tr eportw as phr as ed i n gener al t erm s and pr ovi ded no e x p la n a tio n f

o r h is c o n c lu s io n th a t p n e u m o c o n io s is s u b s ta n tia lly c o n tr ib u te d to d e a th . I n D r . W echt ’ s s econd r eport , he opi ned thatthe pneumoconi os i s w as the pr i nci pal et i ol ogi c fa ct orof H rutkay ’ s pul m onarydi s eas e. H e not ed thatH rutkays m oked c ig a re tte s f

o r a b o u t f

o rt y -f iv e y e a rs b u t q u it a p p ro x im a te ly se v e n y e a rs p ri o r t o h is d e a th . D r . W echtci t ed a medi cal art i cl e i ndi cat i ng thatl ong t i m e ci gar ett e s m oker s w ho qui tcan exper i ence i m pr ovement s i n thei rl ung funct i ons . T he A L J found thatD r . W echtdi d not per s uas i vel yattr i but e H rutkay ’ s chr oni c obs truct i ve l ung di s eas e t o coal dus texpos ur e as o p p o se d to v e ryh e a v yc ig a re tte s m o k in g . T h e A L J n o ted th a t a p o ss ib le im p ro v e m e n t in l un g fu ncti on aft er H rutkayqu i tsm ok i ng seven y ears befo re he di ed d oes no test abli sh th a t p n e u m o c o n io s is w a s a f a c to r i n h is d e a th . D r . W echtfurthernot ed i n hi s s econd r eportthatcentr i l obul aremphy s ema m aybe caus ed bycoal dus t . T he A L J not ed, how ever , thatD r . W echtfai l ed t o es t abl i s h thatcoal dus tcaus ed H rutkay ’ s centr i l obul aremphy s ema. D r . W echtal s o s t at ed thatthe6

pneumoconi os i s di m i ni s hed the s uppl yof oxy gen t o H rutkay ’ s heartand ca us ed hi s fat al h ea rtd isease . T h e A L J fo u n d n o d ispu te be tw ee n the th ree d o ctors tha t H rutk ayh ad v ery m in im a l p n e u m o c o n io sis . T h e A L J a lso n o ted th a t D r. W e c h t’s re p o rt f a iled to e x p lain h o w m in im a l p n e u m o c o n io sis im p a ire d H ru tk a y ’s h e a rt f u n c tio n a n d c o n trib u ted to h is d ea th. H is op inion inv o lved g en era li ti es a n d theo reti ca l po ssibil it ies. U n li k e D r. W ec h t’ s o p in io n , the A L J f

o u n d th a t th e o p in io n s o f D r. N a e y e a n d D r. A ltm e y e r w e re w e ll r eas oned, thor oughl ydi s cus s ed al l the evi dence , and pr ovi ded s ound concl us i ons . T he A L J al s o gave gr eat erw ei ghtt o D r . N aey e’ s opi ni on beca us e hi s curr i cul um vi t ae s how ed th a t h e h a d g re a te r e x p e rt is e w ith o c c u p a tio n a l lu n g d is e a s e s th a n D r. W e c h t. Aft e rr e v i e wi n g th e ALJ ’ s a n a l y s i s a n d th e r e c o r d , i ti s c l e a rth a tth e ALJ cons i der ed the r el evantevi dence and art i cul at ed a s uffi ci entr at i onal e forcr edi t i ng the opi ni ons of D r . N aey e and D r . A l tm ey eroverthe opi ni on of D r . W echt . W e fi nd no err or beca us e the A L J ful fi l l ed hi s s t atut orydut i es and hi s fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e . P et i t i on er al so argues that the A L J erred byfai l i ng t o g i ve D r. W echt’ s aut op sy r eportand opi ni on s uffi ci entw ei ght . She cont ends thatD r . W echt ’ s opi ni on s houl d have been gi ven more w ei ghtbeca us e he w as a tr eat i ng phy s i ci an. W hen w ei ghi ng m edi cal evi dence , an A L J m us tcons i derthe r el at i ons hi p betw een the mi nerand anytr eat i ng phy s i ci an w hos e r eporti s admi t t ed i nt o the r ecor d. See 20 C . F. R . § 718. 104( d) . I n an a p p ro p ria te c a se , the A L J m a yg iv e m o re w e ig h t to a tre a tin g p h y sic ian ’s o p in io n d u e to7

the r el at i ons hi p betw een the mi nerand the phy s i ci an as l ong as the opi ni on i s deemed cr edi bl e “i n l i ghtof i t s r eas oni ng and document at i on, otherr el evantevi dence and the rec o rd a s a w h o le. ” Id . § 7 1 8 . 1 0 4 (d)(5 ). In th e p rese n t case , the A L J fo u n d that D r. W echt ’ s fi r s tr eportw as “phr as ed i n gener al t erm s ” and f ai l ed t o expl ai n how pneumoconi os i s s ubs t ant i al l ycontr i but ed t o H rutkay ’ s death. T he A L J found thatthe se c o n d re p o rt w a s n o t cr e d ib le b e c a u se D r. W e c h t f a iled to p e rsu a siv e lya ttribu te H ru tk a y ’s o b s tru c tiv e p u lm o n a ry d is e a s e to c o a l d u s t e x p o s u re a s o p p o s e d to s m o k in g . M o re o v e r, th e A L J f

o u n d th a t D r. W e c h t f

a iled to e x p lain h o w m in im a l p n e u m o c o n io sis im p aired h ea rtfu n cti o n an d co n tr ibu ted to h is de ath. W e c o n clud e tha t th e A L J’s fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . T he A L J di d noterrbygi vi ng l es s w ei ght t o D r . W echt ’ s aut ops yr eportand opi ni on. See Lango v. D i r ect or , O W C P, 104 F. 3d 573, 577- 78 ( 3d C i r . 1997) ( r efus i ng t o defe rt o tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on w hen he ga ve no b a s is f o r h is c o n c lu s io n ). M s. H rutk ayalso arg u es th at th e A L J erred b yg iving D r. N ae y e’s o p inion m o re w ei ghtbas ed on hi s cr edent i al s . A ccor di ng gr eat erw ei ghtt o the opi ni ons of phy s i ci ans w ho have s uper i orcr edent i al s i s a perm i s s i bl e w ayof r es ol vi ng confl i ct i ng m edi cal opi ni ons . See A dki ns v. D i r ect or , O W C P, 958 F. 2d 49, 52 ( 4th C i r . 1992) ; Sext on v. D ire c to r, O W C P , 7 5 2 F .2 d 2 1 3 , 2 1 5 -1 6 (6 th C ir. 1 9 8 5 ). T h e A L J c o m p a re d th e c u rric u la v it ae o f D r. N ae y e a n d D r. W ec h t and fo u n d D r. N ae y e’s c red en ti als t o b e m o re8

i m pr es s i ve. A ft err evi ew i ng the curr i cul a vi t ae of both phy s i ci ans , w e fi nd s ubs t ant i al e v id e n c e to s u p p o rtth e A L J ’s f in d in g . F in a lly , the p e tit io n e r b a ld lya ss e rts th a t th e A L J s h o w e d p e rso n a l an im o sity tow ard s D r. W ec h t. W e re ject th is argu m en t si n ce sh e p o ints t o n o ev iden ce in the rec o rd s h o w in g b ia s . II I. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e denythe Pet i t i on forR evi ew and af fi r m the or derof the B enef

i t s R evi ew B oar d ent er ed on M ay12, 2005.