The Honor able Ka rl S. Fore ster, Senior United States District Judge for the * Easter n District of Ke ntucky , sitti ngby desig nation. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 06a0847n.06 Filed: Nove mber 17, 2006 No. 05-3680 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
CUMBERLAND RIVER COALCOMPANY, Petitioner,
V.
B.F . CAUDI L L , e t al

. , Re sp on de nts
. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON PETI TI ON F OR REVI EW OF AN ORDER OF THE B ENEF I TS REVI EW BOARD, UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF LAB OR

B e fo re : BATCHEL DER and S UTTON, Circuit Judges; F OREST ER, Senior District Judge. * KA RL S. FORESTER, S enior Distric t Judge . Petitioner Cumberland River Coal Company (“Cumber land”) , the re sponsible operator, seeks r eview of the final de cision of the Be nefits Review B oard ( “B RB”) denying its petition for modification of an aw ard of black lung benef its to retired coa l miner B.F . Caudill (“Caudill”) under the B lack L

ungBe nefits Act, 30 U.S.C. § 901-945 (the “B L BA ”). Cumber land ar g ues that the Administrative L aw Judge (“A L J ”) (1) a bused his discretion by

denying its motion to compel Caudill to underg o a phy sical re

examination or authorize the rele ase of his rece nt medical re cords; (2) err ed in findingthe- 2-

e xiste nc e of

pn e umo c on ios is ( or

“ bla c k lu ngdis e a se ” ); and

(3 ) e rr e d in

fi nd ingtot a l di sa

bil ity due to pneumoconiosis. Afte r a r eview of the re cord a

nd the ar g uments prese nted on appe al, we aff irm the BRB ’s final de cision. I. Ca ud ill wo rk e d in

Ke ntu c ky

c oa l mi ne s f

or tw e nty -s e ve n ye ars , tw e nty -t hr e e of tho se a s a tipple operator, and a s an under g round cuttingmachine ope rator pr ior to that. Ba sed on job descr iptions, t he AL J deter mined that Caudill performe d “He avy Work,” as def

ined by the Depa rtment of L abor. Caudill had ( and continues to have) nume rous hea lth issues. He suffe rs fr om s ho rt

ne ss o f b re ath u

po n mi nim a l e xer

tio n a nd ha s b e e n d ia g no se d w ithc hr on ic br on c hit is, obstructive air

way , hy perte nsion, and other he alth problems. He a lso has had two or thre e hea rt attacks, ba ck surg ery , and a hip r eplac ement. F inally , he smoked a pack of cig are ttes a day

for forty y ear s, until he quit sm oking in 1990. Ca ud ill fi le d f

or bla c k lu ngbe ne fi ts o n O c tob e r 2 3, 19 92 . H is c la im w a s d e nie d o n Apr il 12, 1993, for f

ailure to show that he had pneumoc oniosis and Caudill requested a hear ing. A fter
a p r e - h e ar i n gc o n f

e r e n c e an d

b a s e d o nm e d i c a l e v i d e n c e p r o v i d e d b y D r s . B ak e r , B r o u dy, Chaney and Wrig ht, the district director a ffirme d the initial findings and de nied bene fits. The fo rm a l he ari ngwa s h e ld o n F e br ua ry 9, 19 95 . Re lyingpr ima

ri ly on me dic a l r e po rt s f

ro m D rs . B ake r, Cha

ne y , Sund arum, a

nd Wri g ht, the AL J fou

nd tha t Ca ud ill wa s su ff

e ri ngfr om a disabling r espirator

y impairment at lea st partially due to his coal dust exposure. Acc ording ly , he
awa rd e d Ca ud ill bla c k lu

ngbe ne fi ts. Cumberland appe aled the de cision and on Nove mber 26, 1996, the B RB af firmed the AL J ’s deter

mination that the claimant had pne umoconiosis, but remanded the matter for revie wAl l c itatio ns to t he Cod e of

F e de ra l Re g ulatio ns are to t he c ur re nt e dit ion

un le ss 1 o th e r w i s e n o t e d

p ar e n th e t i c a l l y. The B L BAincorpora

ted 33 U.S.C. § 922, which is section 22 of the L ong shore 2 and Ha rbor Worker s’ Compensation Act, pursua nt to 30 U.S.C . § 932 and 20 C.F.R. § 725.310.

- 3- of whe ther the me dical evide nce suppor ted total disability . On re mand, the AL J documented the evidenc e supportinghis finding of total disabilit y . Cumberland ag ain appe aled, a nd on Marc h 25, 1998, the B RB af

firmed the A L J ’s dec ision, noti ngit was supported by substantial evidence and ther e wa s no reve rsible er ror. Fr om 1992 until April of 1999, Caudill rec eived Ke ntucky state blac k lung be nefits that completely

offse t the fede ral be nefit. As a r esult, Cumberland had no oblig ation to make pay ments on this award until the state’ s final pay ment in April of 1999, and Cumberla nd was order ed to commenc e bene fit pay ments in May

of 1999. On Oc tober 12, 1999, Cumberla nd submitt ed a Petition for Modification Proceeding s pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 725.310 (1999) and 1 33 U.S.C. § 922, alleg ing a mistake of fa ct in the awa rd of be nefits – spec ifically , that the prior 2 finding s of pneumoconiosis and total disability due to pneumoconiosis wer e in er ror – a nd seekinga new

phy sical examination of Caudill, as well as other me dical re cords. In support of its petiti on, Cumberland off ere d a medica l report pr epar ed by Dr. B ransc omb, who opined that Caudill did notsuffe r fr om pneumoconiosis. Cum be rl and fi le d mo tio ns to c omp e l Ca ud ill to c omp ly

wi th i ts d isc ov e ry

re qu e sts and

its reque st to underg o a medica l examination. On August 8, 2000, the AL J denied those motions and subseque ntly

denied Cumberla

nd’s motion for re consideration and dismiss ed the c ase. O n appea l, the BRB rema

nded, re questing that the AL J consider ne w evidenc e provide d by Cumberland to deter

mine whether

it had raised a

cre dible issue about the validity of the orig inal- 4-

finding s, and to hold a hea ringas re quired by

statute. On April 10, 2003, the AL J revie wed Cumberla nd’s newly -submitted medical evide nce, wh ic h in c lud e d tw o a dd iti on a l x-r ay re a din g s a

nd on e a dd iti on a l me dic a l r e po rt , b ut f ound that it
w a s n o ts u

b s t an t i a l l y

d i f f e r e n tth anth e e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d atth e o r i g i n a l h e ar i n g s . T hu s , th e A LJ fo un d th at Cumbe rl and

ha d n ot o ff

e re d e vid e nc e su ff

ic ie nt t o ju sti fy

a re -e xami natio n o f C a

ud ill
or re sponse to further

discovery

reque sts. The AL J g rante d Cumberland’s r equest for a for mal hear ing, a nd the modification hea

ringwas he ld on J uly

22, 2003. After

a full re view of the entire
case , on May

27, 2004, the AL J found that Cumberland’ s evidenc e did not demonstrate a mistake in d e te rm inatio n o f f

a c t in the pr e vio us a dju dic atio n a nd , th e re fo re , d e nie d Cumbe rl and ’s re qu e st for modification. Cum berla nd ag ain appe aled, a

nd on April 29, 2005, the B RB af firmed the AL J ’s dec isions. C umberland f iled the instant petition for revie w of the f inal BRB decision on J une 6, 2005. II. This court must affir

m a final de cision of the B RB unless it has committed leg al er ror or exceede d its scope of re view of the AL J ’s fa ctual finding s. Te nn esse e Con so l. C oa l Co . v . Ki rk, 264 F.3d 602, 606 ( 6th Cir. 2001). We will defer to the A L J ’s fa ctual finding s if they are supported by

substantial evidence and conf orm to the applica

ble law. Martin v. Ligon Prep. Co. , 40 0 F .3 d 3 02 , 3 05 (6 th C ir . 2 00 5) . T hu s, thi s Co ur t mu st d e te rm ine wh e the r t he B RB c or

re c tly conclude d that substantial evidence supported the AL J ’s dec ision. Id. Sub sta nti a l e vid e nc e is that w hic h a re a so na ble pe rs on

might a c c e pt a s a de qu ate to support a conc lusion. Peabody Coal Co. v. Groves , 277 F.3d 829, 833 ( 6th Cir. 2002). To d e t e r m i n e w h e th e r

e v i d e n c e m e e t s th i s s t an d ar d , th e c o urtmu s tc o n s i d e r w h e th e r th e A LJ- 5-

adequately

explained its reasons for c reditingcer tain testimony

and docume ntary

evidenc e over other testimony

and docume ntary

evidenc e. Pe ab od

yCoa l Co . v . H

ill , 1 23 F .3 d 4 12 , 4 15 (6 th Cir. 1997). The que stion of whether we mig ht have r eac hed a dif fer ent conc lusion based on the fac ts in the recor d is irreleva nt in our determination. Grove s , 277 F.3d at 833. A. Th e statut or

y and re g ulator y re g ime a pp lic a ble to C umb e rl and ’s mod if ic atio n r e qu e st i s complicated a

nd require s some discussion in order to assist in effe ctively navig atingthe re levant provisions. The B L BA , found at 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945, is a subcha pter of the Fe dera l Mine Sa fe ty and He a lthAc t ( the “ F MSH A” ). Th e F MSH A e xpre ssl y state s th at, e xce pt a s o the rw ise provided, sec tions 551 through 559 a nd sections 701 throug h 706 of the Administrative Procedur e Ac t (the “A PA”) do not apply to its proceeding s. See30 U.S.C. § 956. S ection 932 of the B L BA , found at 30 U.S.C. § 932(a) , also incorpor ates c erta in provisions of the L ong shore and Ha rbor Worker s’ Compensation Act (the “L HWCA”), including33 U.S.C. § 922, which g overns the modific ation of aw ards. It authorizes the district director to r eview c ompensation
awa rds in acc ordanc e with 33 U.S.C. § 919 and to issue a newcompensation order “ on the g ro un d o f a

c ha ng e in c on dit ion s o r b e c a us e of a mis ta ke in d e te rm inatio n o f f

a c t by the de puty commissioner . . . .” 30 U.S.C. § 932(a)
. Se c tio n 9 19 pr ov ide s th at mo dif ic atio n h e ari ng s c on du c te d b y AL Js mus t c omp ly

wi th
se c tio n 5 54 of

the APA , 5 U. S.C. § 5 54 , whic h a lon gwi th s e c tio n 5 56 , Cumbe rl and argue s, entitled Cumberland to discover y as a matter of r ight simply beca use it had filed a

reque st for mod if ic atio n. Cum

be rl and a lso argue s th at su

bs e c tio n ( h) of

§ 9 19 re qu ir e d th e AL J in th is c a se to order Ca

udill to s ubmit to a new phy sical examination. I n essenc e, Cumberland a rgues that- 6-

the APA’s entitlement to a “ de novo” he aringmeans Cumberla nd has a r ight to “de novo” dis c ov e ry sim ply fo r f ili nga mod if ic atio n r e qu e st. We disag ree . Nothing in se ction 554 of the APA re quires an A L J to order the discovery soug ht by Cumberland in the pre sent circ umstances. It provides only that an ag ency

must give parties a n opportunity

for “ the submission and consideration of fac ts, arguments, offe rs of settlement . . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 554(c) (1). Sec tion 554 deals with the submission of evidence to the ag ency , not with its collection. Section 555 of the APA, which Cumberland doe s not mention, de a ls w iththe c oll e c tio n o f e vid e nc e thr ou g h is su anc e of a g e nc y su bp oe na s, but Cumbe rl and is not an ag ency

and ther efor e does not fa ll within t hat sec tion’s provisions. There is an additional wea kness in Cumberland’s APA a rgument. The fir st link i n the chain c onnectingthe B L BAto the APA specifie s that selecte d L HWCA provisions (an intermediar

y link) will apply

“except as othe rwise pr ovided in this subsection or by regulations of t heSe c re tar

y. . . . ” 30 U. S.C. § 9 32 (a ) ( e mph a sis su pp lie d) . T he Se c re tary

of L a bo r h a s, in fac t, promulgated re g ulations detailing the modification proce dure; ther efor e, the APA se ctions that Cumberland re lies on simply do not apply . 20 C.F.R. § 725.310(b) pr ovides that modification proce eding s must be conducted in a ccor dance with other appr opriate pr ovisions “of this part” and spe cifica lly descr ibes the amount and kind of a dditional evidence that parties may
su bmi t du ri ngmod if

ic atio n p ro c e e din g s ( a lth ou g h n ot h owthe y sh ou ld a c qu ir e it) . T he se de ta ile d p ro vis ion s su g g e st that th e APAse rv e s o nly a s a sto p- g a p in the a bs e nc e of sp e c if ic g uidance from the De partment of L abor, which guidance is provided her e. Cumberland also re lies on 33 U.S.C. § 919(h), but it is equally unhelpful. It provides that [a] n injured employ ee c laiming or entitled to compensation shall submit to suchThis regulation is now found in substantially identical for

m at 20 C.F.R. § 3 725.203(d).

- 7- phy sic a l e xami natio n b y

a me dic a l of

fi c e r o f t he Un ite d St ate s o r b y

a du ly qu a l i f i e d p h ys i c i and e s i g n at e d

o r a p p r o v e d b y th e S e c r e t ar

y as thede

pu ty c om mi ssi on e r [w hic h is thesa meas the“di str ic t di re c tor ”] ma

yre qu ire
. . . . Such phy sician or phy sicians as the e mploy ee, e mploy er or car rier ma y selec t and pa y fo r m ay pa rt ic ipate in a

n e xami natio n if

the e mpl oye e , e mpl oye r o r c arr ie r s o re qu e sts
. 33 U.S.C. § 919(h) (empha sis suppli ed). Under this statute, the district direc tor had discr etion, but w a s n ot r e qu ir e d, to o rd e r C a ud ill to s ub mit

to a n e xami natio n, and

no thi ngre qu ir e d Ca

ud ill to submitto an examination at Cumberland’s dire ction. Fur thermore , 30 U.S.C. § 932(a), whic h incorpora tes 33 U.S.C. § 919 into t he B L BA , specifie s that ref ere nces in the L HWCA “to the employ er sha ll be considere d to refe r to the trustee s of the fund . . . .” So, even if the district direc tor had c ompelled Caudill to underg o examination, the statute authorized participation by the trust fund, not by

Cumberland. One more regulation bear s consideration. At the time of the BRB ’s dec ision, 20 C.F.R. § 718.404(b) ( 1999) require d a miner to pre sent himself for e x amination only “whe re the re is an 3 issue perta ining to the va lidity of the orig inal adjudication of disability .” B eca use this regulation is the ly nchpin in the B RB dec isions about employ er discove ry , it is di scussed fur ther be low. Of the ma ny decisions cited by

the par ties, three a

re r eleva nt to our discussion. I n Selak v. W yoming Poc ahontas Land Co. , BRB No. 97-0976 (June 7, 1999), the B RB af firmed a n AL J ’s ref usal to g rant a

n employ er’ s motion t o compel a me dical examination of the cla imant during mod if ic atio n p ro c e e din g s. Th e B RB wr ote tha t “ [a]lt ho ug h th e Di re c tor

is r e qu ir e d b y

statut e to provide the claimant

with a complete pulmonar y examination, there is no corollar y mandate that the Dire ctor must assist employ er in pursuingthe def ense of a cla im or to develop evide nce on- 8-

modification.” Id. (citations omitted) (empha sis in original). H oweve r, the B RB noted that the
e mpl oye r h a d n ot c omp lie d w ith20 C.F .R. § 7 18 .4 04 (b ) ( no w 2 0 C. F .R. § 7 25 .2 03 (d )) be c a us e it ha d f a ile d to pr ov e a

mis take in f

a c t or a c ha ng e in c on dit ion ; th e re fo re , th e B RB did no t a dd re ss whether the employ er ha d a rig ht to an examination upon givingsufficie nt notice to the claimant. Th e B RB a g re e d “ wi th t

he Di re c tor

tha t Se c tio n 7 18 .4 04 (b ), wh ic h w ou ld r e qu ir e a c la ima nt t o
su bmi t to me dic a l e xami natio ns in c ir c ums tanc e s su c h a s th e se , w a s w ri tte n to fa c ili tate mod if ic atio n; t his pr ov isi on

e xists to a id i n d isc ov e ry , a nd is a va ila ble to e mpl oye r t o f

a c ili tate the pre sentation of its case on modification.” Id. The B RB also noted that “an attempt [ by way of re openingthe ca se on modification] to rectify failed ta ctical judg ment would almost never
war rant a finding that reope ning a

claim would re nder justice unde r the Ac t.” Id. (citations omitted). A subsequent c ase, Stiltner v. W ellmore Coal Corp. , 22 Bla ck L ungRep. 1-37, B RB No. 98-0337 (June 22, 1999), was more succinc t. I t held that wher e the e mploy er did not alleg e a
c ha ng e in c on dit ion

but me re ly

dis a g re e d w iththe mann e r i n whic h th e e vid e nc e wa s p re vio us ly weig hed, the AL J did not err by ref using to c ompel a medica l examination of the claimant. Al tho ug h th e e mpl oye r a

rgue d th at 20 C.F .R. § 7 18 .4 04 (b ) ( 19 99 ) gra nte d it an a bs olute ri g ht t o
a me dic a l e xami natio n, the B RB he ld t hat th e “ e mpl oye r i s n ot e nti tle d to an a bs olute ri g ht t o subject cla imant to discovery reque sts [ including r e-e x aminations] and further inter rog atories pursuant to a r equest for

modification.” Id. at 1-42. The pa rties also look to Ol

d B e n Co al C

o. v , D ire c tor , O W CP , 292 F.3d 533 ( 7th Cir. 20 02 ). In th at c a se , a

n A L J re fu se d to c omp e l a wi do w who wa s r e c e ivi ngsurv ivo r b e ne fi ts t o rele ase he r husband’ s autopsy results duringa modification procee ding. Id . at 54 8. Th e Se ve nth- 9-

Circuit wrote: The re g ulations impl ementingthe Act a re not silent with respe ct to a miner’s oblig ation to cooper ate unde r these c ircumstance s. L ooking f irst to the regulation gove rningmodification proce eding s, 20 C.F.R. § 725.310(b) (2001) pr ov ide s th at “ [m]od if

ic atio n p ro c e e din g s sh a ll b e c on du c te d in a c c or da nc e wi th the provisions of this part as a ppropriate . . . .” Included in Part 725 is § 725.414 w h ic hs tate s in

r e le v an t p art t

h at “ [i ]f a mi n e r un r e a s o n a

b ly r e f u s e s . . . [t ]o pr ov ide the Of

fi c e or the de signate d r e sp on sib le op e ra tor wi th a c omp le te statement of his or he r medica l rec ords . . . the miner’ s claim may be denie d by rea son of aba

ndonment.” 20 C.F.R. § 725.414(a )(3) (i) (2001) . Acc ordingto the regulations, theref

ore, the require ments of § 725.414 apply to modification pr oc e e din g s. Id . (footnote omitted). The court then r emande d the ca se to the AL J for a deter mination of whether the widow’s r efusa l to turn over the a utopsy rec ords was r easona

ble. Id
. Cum be rl and argue s th at Old Ben and Selak support its posit ion and that Caudill’s ref usal to submitto examination and relea se his medical r ecor ds was unre asonable . Wit h all due re spect to the Old Ben court, we take a differ ent view of

the re gulations. 20 C.F.R. § 725.414, which the Old Ben court re ads to requir e Caudill to submit to a new me dical examination and turn over
rec ent medica l rec ords, must be rea d in light of 20 C.F.R. § 725.401. Sec tion 725.401 provides that subpart E, whic h is where § 725.414 is found, deals with the district direc tor’s adjudication of “c laims.” The ter

m “claim” is de fined in § 725.101(a )(10) as “a written asse rtion of entitlement to benef

its under sec tion 415 . . . .” In light of that definition, a modification of a n
awa rd is not an adjudication of a “c laim;” rathe r, it is the reconsideration of such a n adjudication. Se e als o 20 C.F.R. § 725.310(a) (statingthat, at the re quest of any party , the d i s tr i c td i r e c t o r

m ay “ reconsider

the te rm s o f a

n a wa rd or de nia l of be ne fi ts” ) ( e mph a sis
su pp lie d) . T he re fo re , w e c on c lud e that it is n ot a pp ro pr iate to a

pp ly § 7 25 .4 14 (a )( 3) (i ) t o modification proce eding s as the Old Ben court did.- 10-

Ins te a d, we loo k to § 7 25 .3 10 (b ), wh ic h p ro vid e s th at th e pa rt ie s “ sh a ll e a c h b e e nti tle d to submit no m ore tha

n one additional che st X-ra y interpre tation, one additional pulmonary function te st, on e a dd iti on a l art e ri a l bl oo d g a s st ud y , a nd on e a dd iti on a l me dic a l r e po rt
. . . a lon gwi th such re buttal evidence and additional stateme nts as are authorized by para g raphs ( a)( 2)(ii) a

nd (a )( 3) (i i) of

§ 7 25 .4 14 .” Th e po rt ion s o f § 72 5. 41 4 th at are sp e c if ic a lly inc or po ra te d into modification proce eding s by § 725.310(b) a

pply only to rebuttal

e vid e nc e , whic h me ans that in the pre sent ca se, they

applied to Caudill rather

than Cumberland. Only

if Caudill had submitt ed rebuttal e vidence would the provisions have ha d any meaningfor Cumberla

nd. The §725.414 provision cited by

the Seventh Circuit in Old Ben i s n o tam o n gth o s e i n c o r p o r at e d b y § 72 5. 31 0( b) , a

nd thu s w e do no t be lie ve it a pp lie s to mod if

ic atio n p ro c e e din g s. In summary , we a g ree with the BRB that the AL J did not err whe n he re fused to compe l discovery . The submission of additional evidenc e in this modification proce edingwas g overne d by two provisions: 20 C.F.R. § 310(b), which provide s a list of items that the parties may submit, and former 20 C.F .R. § 718.404(b) (1999) (now 20 C.F.R. § 725.203(d) ), which r equire s a miner to submit to a phy sical examination only “whe re the re is an issue pe rtainingto the validity of the orig inal adjudication.” N either of these provisions re quires the district dire ctor or an AL J to compel a miner ’s compliance with an employ er’ s discovery reque st in modi fication proce eding s. Neither a

re the y preve nted from doingso. The matter is discretionary . In this case, the AL J found that discover y was unne cessa

ry beca use Cumberland’ s reque st for modification did not cast doubt on the orig inal disability deter mination and beca

use Caudill’s testimony i n d i c at e d th at , i f a n y th i n g , h i s c o n d i t i o nh a d

d e t e r i o r at e d
. C o n s e qu e n t l y , w e f i n d th atth e A LJ did not abuse his discretion by denying Cumber land’s re quest to compel Caudill’s compliance
.- 11- B. Cumberland also c halleng es the AL J ’s finding s that Caudill had pneumoconiosis and that he wa s totally

disabled due to the pne umoconiosis. W e have examined the merits of Caudill’s claim by independe ntly

revie wingthe re cord a

nd consideringthe par

ties’ ar g uments. We find – as did the B RB – that the AL J ’s dec ision to award be nefits is supported by substantial evidence andis in accor dan ce wi th law andwe aff irm as to th e me ri ts on th e reas on in g of t he BR B. III . Basedon th e for egoin g, we AFFI RM th e deci si on of t he BR B.