2004 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
10-5-2004 

# S afk o v . D irec t or OWC P P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4314

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" S afko v . Dir e ct or O WC P " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 256. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/256NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-4314



### HELEN M. SAFKO, Petitioner
v. DIR ECT OR O ffi ce Wo rker s' Co mpen satio n Pr ogr am, United States Departm

ent of Labor, Respondent

ON APPE AL FROM AN ORD ER OF T HE BENE FI TS RE VIE W BOARD,

UNIT ED STA TES DE PARTMENT OF LABOR (Benefit s Review Board No. 03-0120) Per Curiam Decisi on
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

September 15, 2004 (Fil ed: October

5, 2004) Bef or e: ALI TO, AMBRO, and FIS HE R, Circuit Judges

__________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT2

PE R C URI AM: John Safko, a coal miner wit h pneumoconiosis (“blac k lung dis ease”), died on Janu ary 25, 20 00, of a hea rt attack. H is wif e, He len S afko , applied for su rvivo r’s ben efits under the Bl ack Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S. C. §§ 901 et seq . The District Director of the United States Department of Labor denied t

he clai m because Ms. Safko fail ed to prove that he r husband’s death was due t o black l ung diseas e. An Administr ativeLaw Judge (“ALJ”) affi rmed this denial , which was upheld by an appell ate panelof the Department of Labor’s Benefi ts Review Board (“ Board”). Ms. Saf ko argues that theDistri ct Dir ecto r’s f ind ing , the A LJ’ s af firm anc e, an d th e B oar d’s a ffir ma nce we re all in er ror. The sole i ssue on appealis whether Mr. Safko’s deat

h was due to blac k lung di se as e, as r eq ui r edfo r su r vi vo r ’ s b en ef i t s u nd er 20 C. F. R. § 7 18
. 20 5( a) ( 20 04 )
. We examine the Boar d’s deci sion for error s of law, and we l ook directlyto the ALJ’s decisi on to confirm wither it was supported by substantial evidence, considering the record as a wh ole. Manci a v. Director , OWCP , 130 F .3d 57 9, 584 (3d C ir. 1997 ); Kowalchick v. Director , OWCP , 893 F.2d 615, 619 (3d Cir. 1990). Substantial evide nce is more t han a mere scint

ill a. “It means such rel evant evi dence as a r easonablemind might acc ept as adequate to support a

conclusi on.” Id. To re ce iv e s ur vi vo r’s be ne fit s u nd er th e A ct, M s. S af ko m us t p ro ve by a preponderanc e of the evi dence that black l ung diseas e was a “subst antially contributing
caus e” of her h usba nd’s d eath. 2 0 C .F.R. 7 18.20 5(c)(5 ). An y conditio n that a ctually3

has tens the m iner ’s de ath, e ven brie fly, qu alifie s as a “su bsta ntial ly con tribu ting cau se.” Luko se vi cz v . Dire ct or , OWCP , 888 F.2d 1001, 1005 (3d Cir. 1989). The ALJ found – and the Board agreed – that M s. Safko did not meet this burden because the record as a wh ole d id n ot sh ow that b lack lun g di sea se h aste ned her hus ban d’s d eath . W e ag ree. Fi ve do cto rs o pi ne d o n t he ca us e o f M r. S af ko ’s d ea th . T hr ee (D rs. C on ab oy, Tr ac y , and L ev in so n) fo undth at bl ac k l ung di se as e wa s aco ntribut in g c au se , w hi letwo (Drs. Koval and Sherman) found that it was not. The ALJ scrutinize d each opini on and found that the opinion s in favor o f black lun g disease as a contributing ca use w ere entitled to little weight, where as those stating that M r. Safko d ied solely because o f heart fail ure were reas oned and well- documented. On thi s basis , theALJ found that “the med ical ev idenc e as a w hole f ails to su ppo rt a find ing tha t the m iner’s d eath w as du e to black l ung diseas e.” 18A. This conclusi on was reasonabl e and supported by s ubstantial evid enc e ba sed on t he r eco rd a s a w hol e. Dr. Patrick Conaboy , attending phy sici an at the time of Mr. Safko’ s death and f or the previ ous five y ears, offered a number of reports on Mr. Safko, most of which never discussed black lung disease. The report he prepared during Mr. Safko’s last hos pital izatio n th ree w eek s be for e his dea th d oes not me ntio n bl ack lun g di sea se. How ever, on the d eath certificate and in a letter nearly six months af ter Mr. Sa fko’s death , Dr. C onab oy asserte d w ithout e xplan ation th at blac k lun g dise ase co ntribute d to M r. Safk o’s illnes s and death . The AL J fou nd th ese co nclus ory statem ents en titled to4

“lit tle i f any weight .” 16A. This decisi on was reasonabl e. “The ALJ may di sregar d a medical opi nion that

does not adequately

explai n the basi s for i ts conclusion. ” Lango v. Director , OWCP , 104 F.3 d 57 3, 57 8 (3 d C ir. 19 97)
. Dr. Gerald Tra cy i ssued a re port during Mr. Safko’s last hospit aliz ation listing nine diffe rent dia gno ses, no ne of wh ich w ere bla ck lun g dise ase. L ike D r. Con aboy, he sent a short l ette r six months after Mr. Safko’s deat

h assert ing that there was a direct c onnecti on between Mr. Safko’s bl ack lung di sease and hi s heart diseas e. This opinion was bas ed on the the ory that bl ack lung di sease l eads to s hortnes s of breat h and lower blood- oxygen levels, which wou ld “jeopardize any patient’s heart wh o has a p re-existing coron ary diseas e.” 84A. The ALJ found thi s generalconclusi on “problematic” becaus e it was base d on a “bro ad un establish ed co ncep t” rathe r than o n “the mine r’s ow n spe cific cond itions.” 1 7A . This d ecision wa s also ra tional. B ecau se he art disea se also leads to shortne ss of breath and lower bl ood-oxy gen level s, Mr. Safko’ s sy mptoms may have been due entir ely to h eart d isea se, ra ther than blac k lu ng d isea se. Dr. Sander Levi nson revi ewed the medicalevidence i n the rec ord and is sued a rep ort e xpl ainin g w hy he tho ugh t M r. Sa fko ’s bla ck lu ng d isea se c ont ribu ted to his d eath
. The opin ion as sum ed w ithout f oun dation that M r. Safk o’s lun g con dition c ontribu ted to his hypoxemia (shortage of oxy gen in theblood). This is the same broa d, unjus tifi ed conclusi on found in Dr. Tra cy’ s letter, and the ALJ once agai n found it “ problematic” because the hypoxem ia might hav e been “ who lly caused by the miner’s co ronarycon ditio n.” 1 7A . Ac cor din gly, the AL J ac cor ded the r epo rt “d imin ishe d w eigh t.” 18 A.

On its ow n, the A LJ’s c onclu sion to give D r. Lev inson ’s repo rt little weig ht is reasonabl e. But i n this case, t he ALJ’s decis ion is bolstered bythe opini on of another doctor. Dr. Michael Sherman also revi ewed the medicalrecord and found “ no evidence that M r. Safk o had signif icant h ypoxem ia from his blac k lun g dise ase p rior to h is developi ng congesti ve heart fail ure.” 80A. Accordingly , he concl uded that “Mr. Safko suf fere d a h uge hea rt atta ck th at w as c aus ed b y his u nde rlying c oro nar y artery d isea se. This would have occur

red ir respective of the presenceof coal workers ’ black lung dise ase .” 21 A. D r. Sh erm an c ons ider ed a nd r efu ted D r. Le vin son ’s rep ort. Id. The ALJ chose to relyon this reasoned and doc umented analy sis, rather than theflawed and conclusory opi nions of the other t hree doct ors. The ALJ’s carefulassess ment of comp eting med ical opinions is eno ugh to p ersuade a reasonab le mind that M r. Safko’s death was not ha stened byhis bl ack lung di sease. It fol lows that the ALJ’s deci sion was supporte d by subs tanti al evi dence, cons ideri ng the rec ord as a whole. The Board’s order is the refo re A FF IRM ED
.