2009 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 7-23-2009 

# F elton 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 . 08-1113

F o llow thi s and a ddit ion al works at : http://digit alc ommon s .l a w . vill anova . e du/thirdc ircuit_2009

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 2009 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 " F elt on v . Dire ct or O WC P " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 962. http://di git alc ommon s .l a

w . vill anova . e du/thirdc irc uit_2009/962NOT 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. 08- 1113

___________ RO BE RT A. F E L T ON,

Pet i t i oner v. D I RE CT O R, O FFI CE O F W O RK ER S' CO M PEN SA TI O N PRO G RA M S,

UNI TE D ST ATE S DEP ARTM ENT OF L ABOR;

BET HENERGY M I NES , I NC.

____________________________________ O n A ppeal fr om 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 7 - 2 5 5 BL A)

___________________________________ Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 10, 2009 B efor e: M C K E E , H A R D I M A N and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J ul y23, 2009)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C UR I AM R obertFel t on, pr ocee di ng pro se , appea l s fr om the Sept ember27, 2007 deci s i on of“ L e g a l p n e u m o c o n io sis in c lu d e s a n yc h ro n ic lu n g d ise a se o r im p a irm e n t an d its 1 seq u elae arisi n g o u t of

co al m ine e m p loym en t. ” 2 0 C . F . R . § 7 1 8 . 2 0 1 (a)(2).

2 the B enef

i t s R evi ew B oar d ( “B R B ”) uphol di ng an A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge’ s ( “A L J ”) deni al of hi s cl ai m forbenef i t s underthe B l ack Lung B enef i t s A ct , 30 U . S. C . §§ 901- 944. R obertFel t on w as empl oy ed as a coa l m i neratB ethE ner gyM i nes forei ght een y e a rs, w o rk in g u n d e rg ro u n d a s a ro o f b o lter a n d c a r o p e ra to r m e c h a n ic. H e re tired in 1993. O n J une 24, 2002, Fel t on fi l ed a c l ai m forbenef i t s al l egi ng thathe s uffe r s fr om p n e u m o c o n io s is a n d th a t h e w a s to ta lly d is a b le d . B l ack l ung benef

i t s ar e aw ar ded t o coal m i ner s w ho ar e t ot al l ydi s abl ed by pneumoconi os i s caus ed byi nhal at i on of harm ful dus ti n the cour s e of c oal m i ne em ploym ent. S ee 30 U . S . C . § 9 01 (a) . In order t o b e enti t l ed to ben efi t s, a cl ai m ant m ust es t abl i s h: 1) the exi s t ence of pneumoconi os i s ; 2) thatthe pneumoconi os i s ar os e outof c o a l mi n e e mp l o yme n t ; a n d 3 ) th a tth e p n e u mo c o n i o s i s i s t o t a l l yd i s a b l i n g . S e e 2 0 C. F . R. § 7 1 8 .2 0 1 (a ); L a b e lle P ro c e s s in g C o . v . S w a rr o w , 7 2 F 3 d , 3 0 8 , 3 1 2 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). A n A L J hel d a form al hear i ng i n Fel t on’ s cas e on February28, 2006. A ft er cons i der i ng the evi dence pr es ent ed i n the ca s e, he conc l uded thatFel t on had not e sta b lish e d th e e x iste n c e o f c lin ica l o r le g a l p n e u m o c o n io sis – e ith e r o f w h ich is s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of pneumoconi os i s . See 20 C . F. R §§ 718. 201( a) ( 1) and 718. 201( a) ( 2) . T he A L J al s o det erm i ned, i n the al t ernat i ve, thatFel t on had not 1 e s ta b lis h e d th a t h e s u f

f e rs f ro m a to ta lly d is a b lin g re s p ir a to ry c o n d itio n . S e e 2 0 C .F .R . § 7 1 8 . 2 0 4 (b)(1 ).Fel t on’ s pet i t i on forr evi ew w as t i m el ybecaus e under20 C . F. R . § 802. 406, fol l ow i ng 2 a B R B ’s d e c isio n o n a tim e lym o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n , an a p p e llan t h a s s ix tyd a y s to f i l e a p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w i n th e a p p r o p r i a t e Un i t e d S t a t e s Co u r to f Ap p e a l s . Th e BRB d e n ied F e lto n ’s m o tio n f o r re c o n sid e ra tio n o n N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 0 7 . F e lto n su b se q u e n tly fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew i n thi s C ourton D ece m ber17, 2007, w i thi n the per i od al l ot t ed byr egul at i on. 3 I I . W e have j ur i s di ct i on t o hearthi s appea l pur s uantt o 33 U . S. C . § 921( c) , as i ncorpor at ed by30 U . S. C . § 932( a) . See Lom bar dyv. D i r ect or , O W C P, 355 F. 3d 211, 2 213 ( 3d C i r . 2004) . W e r evi ew the B R B ’ s deci s i on t o det erm i ne w hetheran err orof l aw h a s b e e n c o m m itte d a n d w h e th e r i t h a s a d h e re d to its s ta tu to ry sc o p e o f re v ie w . K ow al chi ck v. D i r ect or , O W C P, 893 F. 2d 615, 619 ( 3d C i r . 1990) . T he B R B i s bound by th e A L J’s f

a c tu a l f in d in g s if

th e ya re su p p o rte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e . Id . T h u s, in r evi ew i ng the B R B ’ s deci s i on, w e musti ndepende nt l yr evi ew the r ecor d and dec i de w hetherthe A L J ’ s fi ndi ngs ar e s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence . I d. Subst ant i al e v id e n c e is “ m o re th a n a m e re sc in til la,” a n d is “ su c h re lev a n t ev id e n c e a s a re a so n a b le m i nd m i ghtacc eptas adequa t e t o s upporta conc l us i on. ” I d. III . In h is p e tit io n f

o r re v iew , F e lto n a p p e a rs to g e n e ra llyc o n ten d th a t th e A L J e rre d in d en y ing h is cl aim fo r be n ef it s, b u t he d o es n o t setfo rth an yca se law w h ich m igh t sup p o rt h is a rg u m e n t. H is in f

o rm a l b rie f

d o e s c o n ten d , h o w e v e r, th a t th e A L J e rro n e o u sly det erm i ned thatone of the thr ee e xpert s i n the ca s e l acke d “cr edi bi l i ty . ” B as ed upon our r evi ew of the r ecor d, w e conc l ude thatthe B R B ’ s det erm i nat i ons w er e s upport ed byT h ere w as n o b iop syev iden ce en tered in the ca se, an d n o statu toryp resu m p ti o n s w ere 3 a p p lic a b le in F e lto n ’s c a s e . 4 s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . A s m ent i oned ea r l i er , pr ovi ng the exi s t ence of pneumoconi os i s i s an es s ent i al condi t i on of ent i t l ementt o benef i t s . B yr egul at i on, the exi s t ence of pneumoconi os i s m ay be es t abl i s hed by : 1) X - r ay ; 2) bi ops yoraut ops y ; 3) i nvocat i on of pr es um pt i ons ; or4) rea so n ed an d d o cu m en ted m ed ical op inion . S ee 2 0 C . F . R . § 7 1 8 . 2 0 2 (a). In F elt o n ’s cas e, the A L J cons i der ed mul t i pl e che s tX - r ayr eadi ngs and the medi cal opi ni ons of thr ee exp ertph y si ci ans. 3 F e lto n u n d e rw e n t th re e se p a ra te c h e st X -ra y s, tw o in Ju n e 2 0 0 3 a n d a th ird in N o v em b er 2 0 0 4 . T h e X -ray s w ere u n ifo rm lyn eg ati v e f o r cli n ical pn eu m o co n iosis. D r. G r egoryFi no, a B oar d- cert i fi ed i nt erni s tand B oar d- cert i fi ed pul m onol ogi s t , exami ned Fel t on i n J ul y2003 atthe r eques tof B ethE ner gy , fi ndi ng no pneumoconi os i s and no r es pi r at oryi m pai rm ent . D r . A hm ad K ahn, a B oar d- cert i fi ed i nt erni s t , al s o exami ned Fel t on i n J ul y2003 atthe r eques tof the D epartm entof Labor . D r . K ahn di agnos ed F e lto n w ith m ild o b stru c tiv e a irw a yd ise a se re su lti n g in “ m in im a l” im p a irm e n t. In h is r eport , he ci t ed both Fel t on’ s over16- y ears m oki ng hi s t oryand hi s coal m i ne empl oym ent a s th e “ p ro b a b le” c a u se o f th e a irw a yd ise a se . H e f u rth e r e x p lain e d th a t itw a s “ d if f icu lt t o as cert ai n [ca us at i on] bas ed upon mi ni m al funct i onal i m pai rm ent ” and that“other eti o [lo g ies] ne ed to b e ru led o u t. ” D X 1 6 at 10 . L astl y , at B ethE n erg y ’s req u est, D r. G eor ge Zl upko, a B oar d- cert i fi ed i nt erni s t , exami ned Fel t on i n J anuary2005. D r . Z l upkoT he B R B aff i rm ed the deni al of bene fi t s bas ed upon the A L J ’ s fi ndi ng of no 4 pneumoconi os i s , hol di ng i tunnece s s aryt o addr es s the A L J ’ s al t ernat i ve fi ndi ng of no to tal re sp ira to ryd isa b ili ty . B e c a u se a m in e r se e k in g b e n e f its m u st s h o w th a t h e is to tally di s abl ed notm er el ybya r es pi r at oryorpul m onarycondi t i on, butbypneumoconi os i s , s ee B o n e ss a v . U .S . S tee l C o rp ., 8 8 4 F .2 d 7 2 6 , 7 2 9 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ), th e B R B a p p ro p ria tely decli ned t o revi ew the A L J’ s al t ernat i ve g round for den i al of b enef i t s. 5 d ia g n o s e d n o p n e u m o c o n io s is a n d n o p u lm o n a ry f u n c tio n im p a ir m e n t. B as ed upon the evi dence , the A L J concl uded thatFel t on had notpr oved the e x iste n c e o f

p n e u m o c o n io sis . S p e c if ica lly , the A L J d e ter m in e d th a t th e e v id e n c e f a iled to es t abl i s h “cl i ni cal ” pneumoconi os i s becaus e the X - r ayr eadi ngs w er e nega t i ve forthe d ise a se . T h e A L J a lso d e ter m in e d th a t th e e v id e n c e f a iled to e sta b lish “ leg a l” p n eu m o co n iosis be ca u se D rs. F ino an d Z lup k o sp ec ifi ca ll yd iagn o sed n o resp ir atory dis ease of an ykind, and D r. K ahn – w hil e diagno si ng coal m i ne em ploym ent as a

“ p r o b a b l e ” c a u s e o f

Fe l t o n ’ s a i rwayd i s e a s e – was e q u i v o c a l i n h i s d i a g n o s i s . Th e ALJ also too k into a cc o u n t th at D r. F ino w as b ett er c red en ti aled than D r. K ah n an d that D r. K ah n ac k n o w ledg ed d ifficu ltyin d eterm ining ca u sati o n b ec au se o f th e “ m inim al” n ature of Fel t on’ s i m pai rm ent . D X 16 at10. B a se d u p o n o u r re v iew o f th e re c o rd , w e f

in d th a t th e B R B a p p ro p ria tely det erm i ned thatthe A L J ’ s fi ndi ng of no pneumoconi os i s w as s upport ed bys ubs t ant i al ev iden ce . A s a re su lt , F elt o n w as n o t entit led to b en ef it s. F ir st, all three o f F elt o n ’s 4 c h e st X -ra y s w e re n e g a tiv e f o r th e d ise a se . S e c o n d , itw a s a c c e p tab le f o r th e A L J to aff or d l es s w ei ghtt o D r . K ahn’ s di agnos i s of l egal pneumoconi os i s beca us e hi s opi ni on w as equi vocal . See Soubi k v. D i r ect or , O W C P, 366 F. 3d 226, 234 n. 12 ( 3d C i r . 2004)T he B R B di d notr eac h the A L J ’ s det erm i nat i on, i n the al t ernat i ve, thatthe evi dence 5 di d notes t abl i s h Fel t on’ s t ot al di s abi l i ty . T he i s s ue i s notpr oper l ybefor e us . See G r i gg v . D ir ec tor, O W C P , 2 8 F . 3 d 4 1 6 , 4 1 8 (4th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). 6 ( an A L J m ay“mi ni m i ze the pr obat i ve val ue” of an equi vocal doct or ’ s opi ni on) . T hi r d, the A L J w as p erm itted to af fo rd g rea ter w eigh t t o the o p inion o f D r. F ino than that o f D r. K ahn bec aus e D r . Fi no i s a B oar d- cert i fi ed pul m onol ogi s tas w el l as a B oar d- cert i fi ed i nt erni s t . See B al s avage v. D i r ect or , O W C P, 295 F. 3d 390, 396- 97 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng thatan A L J m ayw ei gh the var i ous cr edent i al s of the phy s i ci ans gi vi ng o p inion s). 5 T he A L J ful fi l l ed hi s s t atut orydut i es , and hi s fi ndi ngs w er e s upport ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence . A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd no err or . Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e deny the Pet i t i on forR evi ew and af fi rm the or derof the B enef i t s R evi ew B oar d ent er ed on Sept ember27, 2007.