2008 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 Thir d C ir c uit 11-10-2008 

# C onsolid at ion C o al v

. D irec t or OWC P P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-3944

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y 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 Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll 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 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" C on s o l id at ion C o al v

. Dir e ct or O WC P " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 246. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/246H onor abl e J os eph E . I r enas , Seni or U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct * J 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. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 3944

CO NS OL I DAT I ON C OAL CO M P ANY, Pet i t i oner

v. J OHN R . M CG RE E VY; BE NE F I T S RE VI E W BOAR D; 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, R e sp o n d e n ts

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on of the B enef i t s R evi ew B oar d, U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof Labor Di s tr i c tNo. BRB
- 1 : 0 6
- 0 6 8 0
- BLA Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober27, 2008 B efore: S L O V ITE R , G R E E N B E R G , C i rcui tJudg es, and I R E N A S, Seni orD i s tr i ctJ udge * ( Fi l ed: N ovember10, 2008)

OP I NI ON2

SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. C ons ol i dat i on C oal C om pany( “C ons ol i dat i on”) pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the d e c isio n o f

th e B e n e f

its R e v iew B o a rd (“ B o a rd ” ) a f f irm in g a n a w a rd o f

d isa b ili ty benef i t s t o J ohn M cG r eevy , a r et i r ed coa l m i ner , underthe Feder al C oal M i ne H eal th and SafetyA ctof 1969, as amended, know n as the B l ack Lung B enef i t s A ct( “B L B A ”)
. 30 U . S. C . §§ 901 ets eq. W e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. I . M cG r eevyi s an ei ghty - one y ear - ol d m an w ho w or ked as a coa l m i nerfor C o n so lid a tio n f

o r tw e n ty -e ig h t y e a rs a n d c laim s th a t h e su f f e rs f ro m p n e u m o c o n io sis
ca u sed fro m ex p o su re to “ co al m ine d u st an d asb esto s d u ri n g h is m ining ca ree r. ” R esp ’t B r . at10. M cG r eevyfi l ed an uns ucce s s ful cl ai m w i th the D epart m entof Labor( “D O L ”) forfede r al bl ack l ung benef i t s i n 1993. I n 2001, he fi l ed a s econd c l ai m , w hi ch w as deni ed i n 2002, and M cG r eevy ’ s cas e w as forw ar ded t o an A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge (“ A L J ” ). B efor e the A L J , M cG r eevyt es t i fi ed thathe s t art ed s m oki ng ci gar ett es w hen he
w as se v en teen o r eigh teen y ea rs old , sm o k ed b etw ee n tw o an d three p ac k s p er d ayb ef o re qui t t i ng i n 1989, buts t i l l s m oked “s m al l ci gar s once ortw i ce a day
. ” A pp. at376. T he A L J al s o cons i der ed depos i t i on t es t i m onyand medi cal exami nat i on r ecor ds fr om four doct or s engage d i n connec t i on w i th M cG r eevy ’ s cl ai m , as w el l as r ecor ds fr om other ph y si ci ans w ho had treat ed M cG reevyor exam i ned his recor ds.3

N u m e ro u s d o c to rs f

o u n d irre g u lar iti e s in M c G re e v y ’s lu n g s, b u t d isa g re e d a s to the di agnos i s . D r . W ar fi el d G ar s on, w ho pr act i ced pr event at i ve medi ci ne, di agnos ed M cG r eevyw i th coal w or ker ’ s pneumoconi os i s and found thathe “w as t ot al l ydi s abl ed fr om hi s l as tcoal m i ne w or k. ” A pp. at436. T w o pul m onol ogi s t s , D r s . J os eph R enn and G r egoryFi no, di s agr eed: D r . Fi no concl uded thatM cG r eevy ’ s l ung ai l m ent s w er e r el at ed t o nei thers m oki ng norcoal m i ni ng, and D r . R enn conc l uded thattheyw er e s m oki ng re la te d , b u t a ls o f

o u n d th a t M c G re e v yd id n o t h a v e th e c a p a c ity to p e rf o rm h is jo b
. Sever al otherdoct or s w ho r evi ew ed M cG r eevy ’ s ches tx- r ay s di s agr eed a m ong th e m s e lv e s w h e th e r t h e x -r a y s w e re c o n s is te n t w ith c o a l w o rk e r’ s p n e u m o c o n io s is
. B a se d o n th is e v id e n c e , the A L J f o u n d th a t M c G re e v yw a s “ to tallyd isa b led ” d u e to pn eum oco niosi s and aw arded h i m ben efi t s. O n appea l , the B oar d vaca t ed the A L J ’ s fi ndi ngs thatM cG r eevyes t abl i s hed the exi s t ence of pneumoconi os i s , thatM cG r eevy ’ s m edi cal condi t i on had cha nged s i nce the d en ial o f h is fir st black lun g claim , an d that M cG ree v yw as to tal lyd isab led. T h e B o ard
r emanded the ca s e t o the A L J t o r econs i derthe medi cal opi ni ons of D r s . G ar s on, Fi no, and R enn, w i th cons i der at i on t o w hetherD r . G ar s on’ s opi ni on w as “mer el ya r es t at ement of an x- r ayopi ni on. ” A pp. at416. O n r emand, the A L J agai n aw ar ded bene fi t s , expl ai ni ng thatD r . G ar s on’ s opi ni on
w a s s til l th e m o st p e rsu a siv e . T h e B o a rd a f f irm e d th e a w a rd o n Ju n e 2 9 , 2 0 0 7 , an d th is pet i t i on fol l ow ed.4 II. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 3 3 U .S .C . § 9 2 1 (c ), a s in c o rp o ra te d b y3 0 U .S .C . § 932( a)
. W e r evi ew the dec i s i ons of the B oar d forerr or s of l aw and t o “dec i de w hether the [A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge’ s ] fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence
. ” W alke r v. U n iversa l T erm inal & S teve d o ri n g C o rp., 6 4 5 F . 2 d 1 7 0 , 1 7 2 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 1 ). T o estab li sh b lack lun g b en ef iteli g ibil ity , a c lai m an t m u st establish tha t he s u ff ers fr om pneumoconi os i s thatar os e fr om coal m i ne empl oym ent , thatthe af fl i ct i on fr om
w h ic h h e s u f

f e rs re s u lts in to ta l d is a b ility, a n d th a t h e is n o lo n g e r a b le to p e rf o rm h is jo b
. 20 C . F. R . §§ 718. 1( a) , 718. 202- 204. III . Pet i t i onerar gues thatthe A L J err ed i n cr edi t i ng D r . G ar s on’ s opi ni on over confl i ct i ng m edi cal opi ni ons and i n fai l i ng adequa t el yt o cons i derw hetherthe evi dence
re b u tte d th e p re s u m p tio n th a t c o a l d u s t e x p o s u re re s u lte d f ro m c o a l m in e e m p lo ym e n t. B o th a rg u m e n ts f

a il. Pet i t i onercont ends thatthe A L J ’ s deci s i on t o cr edi tthe opi ni on of D r . G ar s on w as nots uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence beca us e he i gnor ed the fi ndi ngs of D r s . Fi no and R enn, both of w hom w er e pul m onol ogi s t s . H ow ever , an “A L J i s notbound t o acc eptthe
o p in io n o r th e o ryo f

a n ym e d ica l ex p e rt, b u t m a yw e ig h th e m e d ica l ev id e n c e a n d d ra w its
o w n in f e re n c e s .” K e rt e s z v . C re s c e n t H ills C o a l C o ., 7 8 8 F .2 d 1 5 8 , 1 6 3 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 6 ). H ere , the A L J w eigh ed the c o n fli cti n g m ed ical diag n o ses a n d d eterm ined that D r.5

G ars on ’s op i nion w as the m ostpersuasi ve. H e st at es: D r. G ars on full yt akes i nto accou nt the C l ai m ant’ s expo sure t o asbest os, to b a c c o sm o k e , an d c o a l m in e d u st, re n d e rin g a c o n c lu sio n w h ich is co n sist en t w ith the h ist o ri es g iven b ythe C lai m an t, the o b jecti v e lab o ratory t es t i ng, and the r es ul t s of hi s ow n obs ervat i ons on phy s i cal exami nat i on of the C l ai m antand hi s r evi ew of the r ecor ds her ei n. ” A pp. at440. C o n tra ryto C o n so lid a tio n ’s a rg u m e n t, D r. G a rso n d id h a v e th e o p p o rtu n ityto
co n side r th e c o n fli cti n g rep o rt s o f o ther d o ctors. F o r ex am p le, D r. G arso n rev iew ed D r. F ino ’s rep o rtp ri o r t o h is de p o sit ion
. A lso c o n tr aryto C o n so li d ati o n ’s co n tention , D r. G a rs o n d id n o t u n d e re s tim a te th e s ig n if ic a n c e o f M c G re e v y ’s s m o k in g h is to ry. M or eover , C ons ol i dat i on i s al s o i ncorr ectthats ubs t ant i al evi dence di d nots uppor tthe A L J’s f in d in g th a t D r. G a rso n ’s o p in io n to o k in to c o n sid e ra tio n M c G re e v y ’s e x p o su re to
as bes t os . D r . G ar s on’ s t es t i m onyi s t o the contr ary . See A pp. at79. T her efor e, w e fi nd thatthe A L J ’ s deci s i on w as bas ed on s ubs t ant i al evi dence beca us e D r . G ar s on’ s opi ni on t ook i nt o acc ountthe var i ous fac t or s thatcontr i but ed t o M cG r eevy ’ s m edi cal condi t i on. C ons ol i dat i on al s o ar gues thatthe A L J fai l ed t o addr es s w hetherevi dence r ebutt ed th e p re s u m p tio n th a t M c G re e v y ’s c o a l d u s t e x p o s u re re s u lte d f ro m h is e m p lo ym e n t. A pet i t i onerm aynotr ai s e an i s s ue bef or e thi s courtthatw as notr ai s ed i n agenc y pr ocee di ngs , abs entunus ual ci r cumst ance s . See B ernando v. D i r ect or , O ffi ce of W or ker s ’ C om p. Pr ogr am, 790 F. 2d 351, 353 ( 3d C i r . 1986)
. B eca us e C ons ol i dat i on f a iled to ra ise th is iss u e b e f o re th e B o a rd in th is a p p e a l w e w ill n o t ad d re ss it. W e b rie f lynot e, how ever , thatthi s ar gum enti s w i thoutm er i tbeca us e ther e w as no evi dence that

M cG r eevyw as expos ed t o coal dus tanyw her e exc epti n the mi ne w her e he w or ked. I V. F o rth e a b o v e - s t a t e d r e a s o n s , we wi l l d e n yth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.