The H onorab le G . Patr ic k M urph y ofthe Southern Dist ri ct  ofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 2174 F LORENCE (C ARO LYN ) C R OWE , on be hal fo f H AR OLD D. C R OWE , P etitio ner, v.
Z EIGL ER C OAL C OMPAN Y, etal. , R espo nd ents.

Peti tionfor Revi ew of an O rde r o f the B ene fits Review Bo ard.

No . 09- BLA-0429

A RG UE D J AN UA RY 20, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UNE 1, 2011

Befo re R IPPLE a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu it Ju dg es , a nd M UR PHY, D istrict Judge.  M UR PHY, D istrict Judge.2 N o. 10

- 2174 I . I ntr oducti on I n thi s ca se, Peti ti onerFl or ence Crowe, the w idow o f H ar ol d D

. Cro w e, a coa l m i ner f or m er ly em p l oye d by Respondent Zei gler Coal Com pany ( “Zei gl er ”) , se eks review of a d e cision of th e B en efi ts R eview Boa rd ( “BRB ”) o f the U ni ted S tat es Dep ar tm ent o fLabor( “DO L”) affi rm i ng a deci si on o fan Ad m i ni str ati ve Law J ud ge ( “ AL J ” ) t o m o d i fy a n a wa r d o fb e n e fi t s t o Mr
. C r o we un de r the Bl a c k Lu ng Be ne fi t s Act ( “ BLB A” ) , 30 U
. S
. C. §§ 901- 45. N am ed as Respondents i n additi on t o Z eigl er are Tra velers Co m p an ies ( “T ravelers”), t he ow ne r ofa su re ty bond that cove rs M r. and M rs . Cro w e’ s cl aim aga i nst Zei gl er, and the Dir ector of the DOL ’ s Offi ce ofW or ker s’ Com pensati on Pr ogr am s ( “OW CP ”)
. I n 200 4 Z eigl er w as li qu idat ed i n ba nk rup tcy, but T ra v elers m ade no appli cati on t o i nter vene i n the m odi fi cati on p ro c ee d in g g ivin g ris e t o t h e p et itio n in t h is c a s e u n til 20 08 , de spi te ha vingb ee n o n n o ti ce of its i nt er es t i n the p rocee di ngs i nc e 20 05
. The modi fi ca ti o n pr o ce eding shoul d have be en di sm i sse d w hen Zei gler c eased to be a r ealparty in i nter estto serv e as the proponento f m odi fi cati on, and Zei gl er ’s s urety, Tra vel er s, wh i ch m ight ha ve s e r v e d a s a real p arty in i nt erest in su p p ort of m od ifica tio n, fa iled to se ek tim ely int er ve n tio n in the m odi fi cati on pro ceedi ng. A ccor dingl y, we re verse the BR B ’ s deci si on a nd r em and thi s ca se f orr ei nstat em ent o fthe aw ar d ofbene fi ts to M r. Cro w e.

II. Ba c k gro u n d an d P roc ed u ral H is tory A s i s no t in fre q u en tl y the cas e in proc eedi ngs under the BLB A , the proce du ra l hi sto ry o fthi s m att eri s bo thN o. 10

- 2174 3 len gt h y a n d co n vo lu te d

. Se e, e . g. , Pe ab ody Coal Co. v. D ir ec t or, OW CP , 16 5 F
. 3d 1126 , 11 27 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ( desc rib in g a tw en ty -fo u r - ye ar -old bla c k lu n g c as e a s “ ty p ical l y pr otr acte d”). I n 198 1, sho rt l y a fterr eti ri ng fro m hi s j o b wi th Ze i g l e r, Mr
. Cr o we fi l e d a c l a i m f o r b e ne fi ts w i th the DO L in w h ich he a sse rt ed that he suff er ed f ro m pneum oco ni osi s, co m m onl y know n as “bl ack l ung” di se as e. At the tim e M r . Cr o we fi l ed hi s 19 81 c l ai m he w as thi rty- si x yea rs o l d and had wo rked as a m i ner f or approxi m ate l y fi ve yea rs . S ubsequentl y the cl ai m was de ni e d b y the DO L a s h a v i ngb e e n a b a nd o ne d. I n 1 99 0 M r . Cr o we fi l ed a ne w appl i ca ti o n f o r b l ac kl ung ben efi ts. T he m ed ical evid en ce su p p o rting M r. Crow e’s 1990 cl ai m i ncl ud ed: the depos itio n tes ti m ony and tre atm ent hi sto ry of Dr. Cu rt i s K ro ck, w ho h ad be en M r . Cr o we’ s tr ea tingphy si ci ani n the l at e 19 70 s an d ea r l y 1 9 8 0 s ; me d i c a l r e c o r d s o fv a r i o u s p h y s i c i an s w ho tre ate d M r. C ro w e in the 1 980s and 199 0s f orr espi ra to ry ailm en ts ; a n d ev id en c e s p ec ifica lly d ev elo p ed in conn ec tio n w i th the cl ai m . Dr. Krock, a boar d-cer ti fi ed p ractitio n e r i n i n t e r n a l m e d ic in e a n d pu lm ona ry di se as e , g a v e a d e p o s i t i o n i n c o n n e c t i o n wi th a p r e v i o us c la i m b y M r. C ro w e a ga in stZ eig ler w ith th e Illino is I nd ustr i alCom m i ssi on i n w h i ch Dr. Krockte sti fi ed that M r. Crowe had a hi sto ry of re curr ent exposure to rock du st. Dr. K ro ck’ s m ai n dia gnos i s was br onchi ti s r el ate d to exposure to r ockdust, al though Dr. Krockal so f ound that M r. Cro w e was an o ccul t a sthm ati c. Dr. Krockacknow l edged that, al though i t was cl eartha tMr
. Cr o we h a d b r o nc hi t i s , the di a g no s i s o f4 N o. 10

- 2174 asthm a was so m ew hat m or e p ro b l em ati calbec ause such a di agnos is typi cal l y r equi re s a sho w i ng o fr eve rs ibi l i ty, m eani ng tha t t h e pati ent’ s pul m onar y defi ci t ca n be im p roved thro u gh m ed ical interven tion. H ow ever, D r. K ro c k t es tifie d th at h e w as sa tis fied w ith h is d iag n os is ofas thm a be cause, i n exam i ni ng M r. Cro w e, so m eti m es D r. K ro ck hear d M r. Cro w e wheezi ng and so m eti m es he did not. Dr. K rock als o te stifi ed that M r. Crow e’s br o nc hi ti s an d a sthm a wer e i ndus tr i al l y - r el at ed an d tha tMr
. Cr o we wa s di s a b l e d. I n 1 994, on ap p eal from the d en ialof M r. Crow e’s c l a i m f o r b e ne fi t s b y a d eputy c o mm i s s i o ne r, ALJ D ona ld M o s s e r affirm ed the d en ialof M r. Crow e’s cl a i m. I n hi s o r de r de ny i ngb e ne fi t s , ALJMo s s e r de ni ed a r eque stb y Ze i g l erf o r r emand o fth e c as e to the Dist ri ct Di re cto r f orthe purpose ofdevel opi ng addit i onal evid en ce, noting th at t he record i n th e case h ad been l eft open f ora consi derabl e t i m e t o al l ow Zeig l erto devel op add i ti onalm edi calev i dence, ye t Zei gl erhad f ai l ed to devel op any such additi onalevi dence. On app ealto the BRB, th e BRB r eve rs ed A LJ M oss er ’ s deni al ofbene fi ts, fi nd i ng tha t Dr. Krock ’ s di agno si s o f M r . Cr o we a s su ff er i ngfr o m i ndus tr i al l y - r el at ed di sabl i ng asthm ati c br onchi tis w i th an i ncapaci tat i ng co ugh m ay have const i tuted a diagnosi s o fl ega l pneum oco ni osi s. On re m an d fro m the BR B, A LJ M oss erf ound in a 1 995 opi ni on that M r. Cro w e was enti tl ed to bl ack l ung benefi ts dated f ro m J uly1, 19 81, the onse t o f M r. C ro w e’ s t ota l disabi l i ty du e to bl ack l ung, and that such be nefi ts shoul d be a ugm ented f orM r. Cro w e’ s wife a nd dau ghterN o. 10

- 2174 5 f o r the pe r i o ds dur i ngwhi chM r . Crow e’ s wi f e an d daughter quali fi ed as depend ents. Zei gl erthen m oved for rec on sid er at ion , ass er tin g t h at M r. C ro w e’s 19 90 cla im w as bar re d because M r. Cro w e’ s 1 981 c laim f orbene fi ts had been di sm i sse d and because M r. Cro w e had f ai l ed to prove a m ate ri alchange i n hi s co nd i ti on s uch as to pe rm i t hi m to br i ng a new cl ai m f orbene fi ts. I n 199 6 A LJ M oss er v ac ated the award ofbene fi ts to M r. Cro w e, and the 1996 or der was affi rm ed by the BRB. A ccor dingl y, M r . Cr o we pe ti ti o ne d thi s Cou r t f o r r ev i ew o fthe BRB’ s dec i si o n. This Court hel d th at bec ause the di sm i ssa l o f M r. C ro w e’ s 1981 cl ai m f orbene fi t was pro ceduraland not a deci si on o n the m er i ts, M r. Cro w e di d not nee d to p ro ve a m at er ial c h an ge in h is c on d itio n be tw ee n h is 19 81 c laim an d h is 1 99 0 c laim

. See Cr owev . Di r e c t or, OW CP , 22 6 F.3 d 609, 61 3- 14 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00)
. The Courtpoi nted ou t t h at res j u d ica ta or c l a i m p re c lu sio n ty p ica lly d oe s n otba r a c l a i m w h er e a find in g of p re c lu sio n is m an ifes tly u nj u st
. Seeid

. A l so, the C ou rt not ed that M r. Crow e’s f ai l ure to pros ecute hi s 1 981 cl ai m m ay have been prom pted by a dvic e he re cei ved fro m an em p loy ee ofthe So ci alS ecuri ty A dm i ni str ati on ( “SS A ”) to the e ff ect that he “s h ou l dn ’ t co ncer n [ hi m ] sel fwith the bl ack l ung cl ai m so m uch, because i f [ he ] qual i fi ed for d isa b i l ity so c ial se c u rit y [h e] w ou ld au to m at ica lly qu a l i fy f o r b l a c kl un gb e ne fi t s . ” Id

. at 61 2 (e m p h as is om itted ). T he Cou rt conc lud ed that, w he n M r. Crow e’s i l l i ter acy w as c on sid er ed i n conj uncti on with hi s l ack of6 N o. 10

- 2174

re prese ntati on a nd the m isin f or m ati on g i ven t o hi m by the S SA, “i t would be unfa i r and i m properto h old that th e p ro c ed u ra l d en ial of t h e p et itio n er ’s in itia l cla im i s s uffi ci ent t o depri ve hi m o fan op p or tuni ty w i th as si stance of counsel to advance hi s 1990 cl ai m on th e m er its ofhi s hea l th co nd i ti on. ” Cr owe, 226 F
. 3d at6 13
. The Court sai d al so th at “ i t s eem s cl earthatther e e xi sts si gn ifica n t ev id en c e of C ro w e’s d eb ilita tin g lu n g c on d itio n,” an d u rg ed that the c ase be re sol ved “as expedit i ou sly as p os sib le” on rem an d

. Id

. at 615. The C o urt therefore re m anded the case to the A LJ forfurtherpro ceedi ngs. On rem and, Zei gl erso ught t o re open the r eco rd o r to rem an d th e c as e t o t h e D ist r i c t D ire c to r for th e d ev elo pme nto fad di t i o na l e v i de nc e . I n J a nu a r y 2 0 0 1 ALJ M o ss erde ni ed Ze i g ler’ s r eque sto n the g r o unds tha t th e c o mpa nys ho ul d h a v e b e e n ab l e t o a nt i ci pat e the ty pe ofev i dence to be devel oped i n the cas e, r ega rdl ess o f w hetheri t was co nsi dered a d up l i cate cl ai m o r an or igin al c laim , a n d be c au se Z eig ler h ad enj oy ed am p le opportunity t o devel op ev i dence and ther e was no need unnecessar i l y t o prol ong the pr oce edi ngs. I n M ar ch 200 1 A LJ M oss erente re d a new orderawa rd ing be nefi ts to M r. Cro w e. There after, Zei gleri ni ti ate d a pro ceeding f or a m o di fi ca ti o n o fALJ M o ss er ’s awar d o fb en efi ts a nd ad vis ed th e DOL byl et te r tha t i t r efus ed to pa y the benefi ts aw ar ded to M r. Cro w e. I n the cour se ofthe m odi ficati on pro ceedi ng, wh i ch by tha t t i me ha d b e e n a s s i g ne d t o a ne w ALJ, Robe rtL. H i l l y ar d, the pa r ti es de po se d f o urphy si ci an s, Dr
. Abdul Dahh an, Dr
. La wre nc e Re psh er, Dr
. J o se ph Re nn, a nd Dr. G re gor y F i no, wh o w er e pr ese nted by Zei gl erasN o. 10

- 2174 7

w i tness es. Each ofthe fou r w i tness es concl ud ed that M r. Cro w e was notsuff er i ng fro m bl ack l ung dis eas e because the obj ec ti ve evi dence, thati s, x- ra ys and other m edi calte sts , di d not s upp or t such a diagnosi s. I n 200 3 A L J H illya rd d en ied Z eig ler ’s m od ifica tio n p et itio n . In A ugust 2 004 the BRB reve rs ed A LJ H i l l yar d’s denia l o f m o di fi ca ti o n, f i ndi ngtha t ALJ H i l l y ar d ha d pl ac ed undue w eight on t h e t e s tim ony of D r. K rock as M r. Crow e’s treating ph ysician, and rem an d ed th e case to A L J H il lyard f orfurtherpro ceedi ngs. I n Octobe r 2004, wh i l e a m oti on byM r. C ro w e fo r r ec o ns i der at i o n o fthe BRB’ s dec i si o n was pe ndi ng bef or e the BR B, Zei gl er ’ s counsel m ove d t o w ith draw f ro m the m odi fi cati on pro ceedi ng be cause H or i zon N atur alReso urces ( “H or i zon”) , wh i ch w as the s uccess or i n i nter estto Zei gl erand had been in bankr up tcy proc e e d i n g s s i n c e 2 0 0 2 , h a d b e e n l i q u i d a t e d

. I n D e c e mber20 04, f ol l owing denia l o fM r. Cro w e’ s m oti on f or r ec o n s i d e r a t i o n, th e B R B e n t e r e d a n o r d e r “ n o t [ i n g ] ” the w i thdrawal ofZei gl er ’ s co unsel fr om the m odi fi cati on proce edi ng. The DO L, thro ugh the Offi ce o fthe So l i ci tor of L ab or , m ov ed bo th th e B R B an d A L J H illya rd to h old M r. Cr o we ’ s c l a i m i n a b e y a nc e , s t a t i ngtha tt i me was ne ed e d i n o r d e r t o d e t e r mi n e wh e th e r a s u r e t y b o nd cove re d t h e cl ai m and, i fno such bond exi ste d, how th e D ire c to r of t h e O W C P w is h ed to p ro c ee d . In Febr uary20 05 the Offi ce o fthe So l i ci torwrote to AL J Hi l l y ar d s ta tingtha t i t ha d i den ti fi ed a s ur ety b o nd i ssued by A etna Casual ty and Sure ty Com pany ( “A etna” ) th atc o ve r ed M r . Crow e’s c l ai m . The l et te r a l so was s en t to A etn a an d the H orizon L iqu idat ing Tru st to notify8 N o. 10

- 2174 them thattheyco uld s eekto in te rvene i n the m odi fi cati on pro ceedi ng as part i es i n i nter est
. A L J H illya rd d en ied th e D O L ’ s re q u es t t o h old M r. Cro w e’ s cl ai m i n abey ance, fin d ing that no i nsurer yethad bee n m ade a partyto the m odi fi cati on pro ce edinga nd tha t “[ a] ddi nga ne w par tya t this po i nt w ou ld be p rej ud ici al to [M r. Crow e]. ” O n th e D O L ’s m oti on f orr eco nsi derat ion, A LJ Hil l yar d acknowle dged tha t, i n l i g hto fthe l i qu i da t i o n o fHo r i z o n a nd Z e i gl er an d the f ac t th atne i th erAetna northe Di r ec to r o fthe OW CP had a tte m pted to i nter vene i n the m od ifi cati on pr o ce eding, the pr o ce edingwas wi th o uta pr o po ne nt, b ut nonethel ess or dered bri efi ng on the i ssue ofm odi fi cati on to go f or w ar d. I n M r. Cro w e’ s o pening bri efo n m odi fi catio n, he arg u ed t h at th e m od ifica tio n p ro c ee d in g s h ou ld be di sm i sse d f orl ack ofpro secuti on, bec ause no par ty i n i nt er es t ha d a ppea r ed to a dvo ca te f o r modi fi ca ti o n. I n J ul y 2 00 5 AL J Hi l l y ar d g r an te d m o d if icati o n o fthe 2001 award ofbenefi ts to M r. Cro w e, denyi ng be nefi ts. I n h i s m o di fi ca ti o n o r derALJ Hi l l y ar d , tho ug h fi ndi ng bo ththa t M r . Cr o we’ s ar g um en t f o r di smi ss alo fthe m o di fi ca ti o n pr o ce edingwas “ te ch ni ca l l y a cc ur at e” a nd th a tZ e i g l e r ’ s r e qu e s tt o de v e l o p a ddi t i o na l me di cal evi dence i n supp or t o f m od ifi cati on was m oo t be cause Zei gl erh ad cea sed to exi st, nonethel ess found that re v i e w o fZ e i g l e r ’ s e v i de nc e i n s up po r to fmo di fi c a t i on was r equi r ed be ca us e Ze i g l er ha d be en a par ty to the p r o c e e d in g at one tim e. O n ap p eal from A L J H il lyard’s m odi fi cati on o rder, the BR B, l i ke A LJ Hil l yar d, rej ected M r. C ro w e’s ren ew ed req u es t fo r d ism iss al of t h e m od i-N o. 10

- 2174 9 fi cati on pro ceedi ng, fi nd i ng tha t Zeig l erwas a par ty to the pr oce edi ng and thatZei gl er ’ s co unsel were re presenting Zei gler’s i nter est
. Li kewis e, the BR B affi rm ed A LJ Hil l yar d’s deci si on t o cred it the e vi dence of Dr
. D a h h an, D r . R e p s h e r, D r . R e n n, a n d D r . F i n o . Ho weve r, th e BR B rem anded the case fora deter m i nati on b y A L J H illya rd as to w h et h er m od ifica tio n w ou ld r e n d e r j u s t i c e u n d e r th e B L B A. I n Febr uary 2008 Trave l er s fi l ed a “pro tect i ve m oti on f orco nd i ti onali nter venti on” i n the m odi fi cati on p ro ceedi ng, as ser ti ng tha t i t was t h e succes sori n i nter est to A et n a a n d th at it m igh t b e liab le on a su re ty bo n d if M r. Cro w e were aw ar ded benefits

. On re m and fr om o f th e ca se fr o m the BRB, M r . Cr o we argue d tha t a g r an t o fmodi fi ca ti o n wo ul d no t r en derj us ti ce unde r the BL BA bec ause Zei gl erhad re fused to pay the 2 001 b en efit s a w ar d to M r. C ro w e a n d h ad failed d ilige n tly to defend against M r. Cro w e’ s o ri gi nal cl ai m f orbene

fits

. I n J anuary20 09 A LJ M oss er, to wh om the case once aga i n had been a ssi gned , found thatZei gl ero r its su c c es so rs in i n te re st h ad d isp lay ed ad eq u at e d ilig en ce i n pr o se cut i ngmodi fi ca ti o n a nd fur th erf o und th a tmo d i fi c a t i o n r e n d e r e d j u s t i c e u n d e r th e B L B A. M r . Cr o we a ppea l ed to the BRB, a g ain a sk i ngtha t th e m odi fi cati on pro ceedi ng be di sm i sse d by r eas on of Zei gl er ’ s i nabi l i ty, as an e nti ty l iq u id ate d i n bankr up tcy, t o p u r s u e s u c h a p r o c e e d i n g . I n Au g us t 2 00 9 Mr
. C r o we die d at the ag e o fsi xty- fi ve. I n Octobe r 2009 the BR B gra nted Trav el er s lea ve to i nter vene i n the appeal fro m A LJ M os ser ’ s m odi fi cati on10 N o. 10

- 2174

or der. On M ar ch 18, 20 10, the BR B enter ed an o rder fi nd i ng that Trave l er s had b ro ught a ti m el y re qu es t fo r i nter venti on, bec ause the r equest to in ter vene had f o l l o wed c l o se l y upo n a de ci si o n ofth is Co ur t sh o wi ng th at T ravelers, as Z eigl er’s surety, w as req uired t o i nt ervene to p ro tect i ts i nter est
. The BRB al so affi rm ed A L J M os se r’s d ec isio n to gra n t m od ifica tio n an d to te rm inate benefi ts. A t the ti m e the BRB affi rm ed the denia l ofbene fi ts, i t g ra nted M r. Cro w e’ s w i dow , Fl or ence Crowe, l eave to i nter vene i n thi s m at terand to be subs ti t ut e d fo r h e r l a t e h us b a nd a s the c l a i man t
. On M ay 1 2 , 2 0 1 0 , Mr s . Cr o we p e t i t i o ne d thi s Co ur tf or r ev i ew o fthe BRB’ s dec i si o n.

II I. A n alysis W hi l e te ch ni ca l l y thi s ap p eal i s f r o m a de ci si o n o fthe BRB, i n rev i ewi ngthe de ni alo fb l ac kl ungb en efi ts , the Court m ust e val uate the j u dgm ent o fthe A LJ, notthato f th e B R B
. S e eCo l l i n s v . Ol d Be n Co al Co
. , 86 1 F
. 2d 481, 48 6 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 8)
. The Co ur t m us t det er m i ne whethe r the A LJ’ s deci sio n is ra ti onal, i s s up port ed by substa nti al e v i d e n c e , a n d i s c o n s i s t e n t w i th th e l a w. S eeM igl i or i niv. Dire ctor, O W CP , 898 F.2d 12 92 , 129 4 (7 th C ir. 19 90 ). A lth o ug h the Co ur t m us t r ev i ew the e nt ire r ec o r d, the Court m ay not re deter m i ne the f acts o r sub st itu te i ts j u d gm en t fo r th at of th e A L J. Se eFre e m an U ni t e d Coal M i n i n g Co. v . BRB , 919 F.2d 451 , 452 (7t h C ir. 1990). T h e Cour t’ s re vi ew of questi ons of l aw , how eve r, is d e n ov o. Se ePe ab ody Coal Co. v. Vigna , 2 2 F
. 3 d 1 3 8 8 , 1 3 93 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94)
. “The [ BR B] has the i den ti calsco pe ofN o. 10

- 2174 11

r ev i ew whe n s i tt i nga s an a ppel l at e pan elr ev i ewi ng deci si ons of th e AL J
. ” Ze t t l e rv . Di r e c t or, OW CP , 88 6 F
. 2d 831, 834 (7th C ir . 1989). Jud ici al r eview of th e B R B ’s deci si on i s l i m i ted to wh etherthe BR B ad here d to i ts sco pe ofr evi ew and to wh etherthe B RB co m m i tte d an er ro r of law

. SeeO ld B en Co al Co
. v. Prewitt, 75 5 F
. 2d 588, 589-90 (7th C ir. 1985). On a ppea l, M rs. Cr o we pr es en ts thr ee i ss ue s f o r the Court’ s co nsi derat i on: ( 1) wh etherthe m od i fi cati on p ro c ee d in g g ivin g ris e t o t h e p et itio n in t h is c as e s h ou ld h av e b ee n d ism iss ed w h e n Z eig ler w as liqu id at ed in ba nk r upt cyand no othe r pa r tyi nt er ve ne d a s a pr o po ne nt of m od ifica tio n ; (2) w h et h er A L J M os se r ab u se d h is disc re tio n i n fi nd i ng tha t m odi fi cati on o fhi s 2 001 or der aw ar ding benefi ts to M r. Crow e re nd er ed j usti ce under th e BLBA wher e Ze i g l er, whi chne ve r a ppea l ed th e 2001 o rder, had w i l l full y r efused to pay benefi ts to M r. Cro w e a s o rder ed, and w hetherthe m odi fi cati on d ec is ion w as ot h er w ise arb itr ar y a n d ca p ric iou s in i gnor i ng AL J M oss er ’ s pri orfi nd i ngs t h at Z ei gl erhad not been d ili gent i n def ending M r. Cro w e’ s o ri gi nal c l a i m; a nd ( 3 ) wh e the r the BR B er re d in r e v e r s i ngALJ H ill yar d’s 2003 o rderdenyi ng m odi fi cati on o fthe 2001 benefi ts aw ar d w here the 2 00 3 or der found no er ro r of f a c t in th e 2 00 1 a w ar d . B ec au se th e C ou rtco n c u rs in M rs . C ro w e ’ s fir st as se rt ed gro u n d for re ve rs al, it is unnecessar y forthe Court to ad d re ss the o thertwo as
se rt ed gro u n d s fo r re ve rs al. T h e B L B A p ro vid es t h a t an y “ p ar ty in in te re st
. . . i ncl udi nga n e mpl o y e r ” ma y r e qu e s tmo di fi c a t i o n o fan12 N o. 10

- 2174

T he s t atut e gove rn i ng m odi fi c at i on ofawar ds ofbl ac k l ung 1 benef it s, 33 U.S
. C. § 922, i n f acti s a prov is ion ofthe Lon gshore and H a rb o r W orkers ’ Com pensati on A ct, 33 U.S
. C. §§ 901- 50. I ti s i nc or po r a t e d by r e f e r e nc e i nt o the BLB A by wa y of3 0 U. S
. C. § 93 2 (a ). S e e E i

f l e rv . OWCP , 92 6 F .2d 66 3 , 66 5 (7t h C ir . 19 9 1 ). aw ar d ofbene fi ts und erthe sta tute. 33 U
. S. C. § 9 22. A l so, 1 DOL r e g ul a t i o ns p r o mul g a t e d pur s ua ntt o the BL BA perm i t a ny i nter est ed pers on t o beco m e a party t o a proce edi ng co ncer ni ng an aw ar d ofbla ck l ung benefi ts. S pec i fi ca l l y, i n a ddi ti o n t o i den ti fy i nga c l ai m an t, pe r so ns au th o r i z e d to ex ec u te a c laim on th e c laim an t’s be h alf, a coa l m i ne o perat or, and the Dir ector o fthe OW CP as pr o perpa r ti es t o a b l ac kl ungc l ai m , the r egul at i o ns provi de that “[ a] ny o theri nd i vi du alm ay be m ade a party i fthati nd i vi du al ’ s ri ghts w i th r espectto bene fi ts m ay be pr ej udi ce d b y a d ecisi o n t o b e m ade

. ” 20 C. F
. R. § 72 5. 36 0( d)

. The r egul at i o ns pr o vi de al so th ata n i nsura nce car ri er of a coa l m i ne oper ato r i s a p ro p er partyto a proce edi ng co ncer ni ng an aw ar d ofbl ack lu n g b en efit s. See 20 C. F. R . § 72 5. 360( a) ( 4)
. I n gene ra l, an a wa r d o fb l a c kl un gb e ne fi t s c a n b e mo di fi e d b y a n ALJ onl y w here such m odi fi cati on i s desi rabl e i n or der to re n d er j u st ice u n d er th e B L B A
. Se eO ’ Kee f f ev. Aerojet- Gen e r al Sh ipyar ds, Inc . , 404 U
. S. 254, 255 (1971 ); OldBe n Co al Co
. v . Di r e c t or, OW CP , 29 2 F
. 3d 533, 54 7 (7th C ir. 2002). Inth e c on te x t o f a c as e s p ec ifica lly in vo lvin g, as in t h is c as e, a cla im for b lac k l u n g ben efit s aga in st on e o fH or izo n’ s pr ede ce ss o r s i n i nt er es t, O ld BenCo alCo m pan yN o. 10

- 2174 13

The Cour tr ec ogni zes thats t andi ng i n a dm i ni s t ra t i ve pro 2 c ee di ngs u nd er the BLBA i s det er m i ne d notby Ar t i c l e I I I of the C on stitutio n b u t by D O L reg u lation s and ap p licab le sta tu te s. S e e, e . g . , G i b a s v . S ag i n a w Mi n i n g Co
. , 748 F. 2d 1112, 11 19 (6th Cir. 19 84 ) (Co ng ress m ay em p ow er th e B R B to ad jud ica te b la ck lu n g b en efi ts c a se s); K al ar i s v. Donovan , 69 7 F. 2d 37 6, 38 8 ( D. C. Ci r. 1983) (the B RB i s no tanArt i c l e I I I c our tbut m a y e x e c u t e “ s o me fu n c t i o n s h i s t o r i c a l l y p e r f o r me d by jud g es ”)
. How eve r, atl ea s tf or pur pos es ofthi s c as e, the Cour t wil l as s um e what s ee m s al s o t o have bee n as s um ed i n O l d Ben C oal , na m el y, thatt es t s ofno n- c ons t i t ut i ona l s t andi ng b oth in ad m i n i st rativ e p ro ceed ing s un d er th e B L B A an d in (co n tin u ed ...) ( “Old Ben”) , thi s Courthel d that the pre decesso r coa l m i ne oper ato r, up on l i quidati on i n bankr up tcy, ce ase d to be a r eal p arty i n i nter estto the BL BA pro ceedi ngs. S e eOl d Be n Co al Co
. v . OW CP , 47 6 F
. 3d 418, 42 0 (7 th Cir. 2007) (“ O l d Be n Coal ”) ( “Old Ben has no p os sib le sta ke in thi s l i ti gat i on. I t i s there f or e no t a r ealparty in int er es t, w h ich is to sa y a p ar ty t h a t h as a leg ally prot ectabl e inter esti n the outco m e o fthe suit. It is a p arty in nam e only.”)

. So too in this c a s e : after Zeigler’ s l i quidati on i n bankr up tc y, pu rs uant to the sam e o rder th at li qu idat ed Old Be n, t he n u p on M r. Crow e’s re q u es t, Z eig le r sh ou ld h av e b ee n d ism iss ed from th is case under e l em entary pri nci ple s o fprudenti alst anding. See R KC o . v. See, 622 F. 3d 846, 851 ( 7th C ir. 2010) (ci ti ng Rawo of

v . Texo rPe t r ol e u m Co
. , 52 1 F
. 3d 750, 75 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ) (n ot ing that the r eal

- party
- i n-inter est rul e i s e sse nti al l y a non- const i tuti onal, prudenti al l i m i tation on sta nd ing). 214 N o. 10

- 2174

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 suits for jud icial rev iew of such p ro ceed ing s are ap p ro xim ately th e sa m e. Se e, e . g . , M a r t i n- Tr ig o na v . F e d e r a l Re s e r v e Bd. , 509 F .2d 36 3 , 36 5 -6 6 & n .10 (D .C . C ir . 19 7 4 ). Thi s s pec i fi c por t i on ofthe Cour t ’ s deci s i on i n O l d Ben C oal 3 ther ef ore defeats any cl aim b y Trav el ers that, aft er Z ei gler w as liqu id ated in b an k ru p tcy , Zei gl erne ver the l es s r em ain ed a v iab le (co n tin u ed ...) Equa l l y i m po r ta nt l y, i n O ld B en C o a l th e C ou rtsp ec ifical l y found that the o rderl i quidati ng H or i zon and i ts p red eces sors in i n t e r e st (i nc lud ing O ld B en and Zeigler), did notm ake H or i zon and i ts predeces sor s in i nter est parti es i n i nter estto BLB A pro ceedi ngs. The l i qu id ati on or der pr ovi ded thatpending bl ack lu n g cl ai m s a gai nst H or i zon and i ts predeces sor s i n i nter est “s hal l not be di sm i sse d but i nstea d, allo w ed to pro ceed t o fi nal adj ud i cati on w i th the appli cabl e debtor s as parti es.” 476 F. 3d at 419. The o rderpro vi ded al so that “cl ai m s that r es ul t i n b en efi t awar ds wi l l no t be e nf o r ce d a g ains t th e Debtor s but ra th erwil l f or m the basi s f orco l l ecti on f r o m a ny o th err es po ns ibl e par ti es the refor e, i nc l udi ng wi th o utl i m i ta ti o n, the Deb to r s’ s ur et i es unde r the b lac k lu n g s ta tu te .” Id

. ( br ac k et s o m i tt ed)

. Howev er, the C ourtf ound that be cause the o rderl i quidate d H or i zon and i ts predeces sor s i n i nter estand d esi gnate d no succe ssor s i n i nter est to thos e enti ti es, the or der d id not m ak e H or izo n an d its p re d ec es so rs in in te re st via b le p ar tie s t o B L B A p ro c ee d in gs , sh or t o f in t e r ve n tio n in such proc eedi ngs b y sure ti es ofH or i zon and i ts predeces

so rs in in te re st or th e D O L
. Seeid

. at 419- 20. 3N o. 10

- 2174 15

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 pa r t y t o the m od i fi c a t i onpr oc ee di ng a ti s s ue i n thi s c a s e by virtue ofthe bank ruptcy court’ s order li quidating Zeigler

. Bec au se the Co ur t det er m i ne s th atZe i g l erw as no longer a par tyi n i nt er es t to the modi fi ca ti o n pr o ce eding giv in g ris e t o t h i s a p p ea l aft er Z eig ler ’s liq u id at ion in ba nk r upt cy, the r emai ni ngi ss ue t o b e dec i ded by th e C ou rt i s an ex trem ely narrow on e: w he th er Trav elers soughti n a t im ely m an ner to i nter vene i n the m odi fi cati on pro ceedi ng upon bein g put o n noti ce o fi ts i nter est in th e pr oc ee d in g. A s alre ad y ha s be en n ot e d , a p p lica b le DO L regula ti ons p er m i t a n i nsurero fa m i ne o perat or and, m or e br oadl y, an y perso n w hose r i ghts m ay be aff ecte d by a B L BA pro ceedi ng, i ncl ud i ng a m odi fi cati on pro ceedi ng, to be m ade a partyto the proc eedi ng. See 20 C.F
. R. § 72 5.3 60(a) ( 4) , ( d). A l though the r egul ati ons do not speci fy a ti m e withi n w hi ch an i nsurero r o th e r i n t e r e s t e d p e r s o n mu s t s e e k i n t e r v e n t i o n, i ts e e ms re aso nabl e t o supp ose thatthe re gul ati ons conte m pla te th at an ins u re r or ot h er p er so n w h os e in te re st s a re likely to be affected by a BL B A proc eed in g w ill seek interventi on in a t i m el y m anner up on be i ng not i fi ed ofan i nt er es t i n the pr o ce eding . Thu s, the pe r tine ntr egul at i o ns speci fi cal l y pr ovi de that a requestf orm odi fi cati on o fan or der forbene fi ts und erthe BL BA m ay be “den[i ed]

. . . by reason of aba nd onm en t.” 20 C.F. R
. § 725.310(c). I t i s a pp ar ent t o the C ou rt that Tra vel er s di d not s eek ti m el y inter venti on i n the m odi fi cati on pro c ee ding at i ssue i n thi s ca se. A s noted, no l ate r than F ebr uary20 05,16 N o. 10

- 2174

w hen the DO L i nvi ted A etna, the predeces sori n i nter est of Travelers, to interven e in the p roceed ing, T r avelers w as on not i ce that, by vi rtue o fthe sure ty bond i ssued to Zei gl erco ver i ng M r. Cro w e’ s cl ai m , Tra vel er s h ad an i nter estthatm i ght b e i m pai re d by the pro ceed in g, w er e Tr avel er s, as Zei gl er ’ s s urety, r equi red to pay M r. Cro w e’ s cl ai m ag ai nst Z ei gl er . Tra vel er s a rgues that i ts peti tion f ori nter venti on i n the m odi fi cati on pro c ee d i n g w as tim ely be c au se th e p et itio n follow ed clo se ly upo n thi s Cou r t’ s dec i si o n i n Ze igl e rCo al Co
. v . OW CP , 49 0 F.3d 609 ( 7th C ir . 2007) (“ Zeigl e rCoal ”). U nt ilthe C ou rt r en der ed i ts de ci si o n i n Zeigl e rCoal , Tr av el er s ar g ue s, the su r ety was una war e th ati t ne ede d t o i nte r ve ne i n the m o di fi ca ti o n pr o ce edingt o pr o te cti ts r i g ht s. I n Z eigler Coal , the Co ur t f o un d tha t a s ur e t y o f Ze i g l er was enti tl ed to i nter vene in a pro ceedi ng f orbene fi ts und er the BLB A , wh er e th e su rety had not be en aware ofi ts ob li gat i on t o i nter vene unti l thi s Courtr endered i ts dec i si o n i n O ld Ben Co al ea rlier in t h e sa m e y ea r. See Zeigl erCoal , 4 90 F
. 3d at6 10 n. 1. The Co ur t fi nds the r el i an ce o fTr av el er s o n Z eiglerCo al t o b e mi s pl a c e d. M os t im p or ta n tly for p u rp os es of th is c as e, n o t h in g in th e Z eiglerCo al deci si on i n any w ay am pli fi ed or en l ar g ed upo n the Co ur t’ s ba si c ho l di ngi n O l d B en Coal

. I n the Ol d Be n C o al d ecis i on, as al re ady has been disc ussed, the Court f ound that Ol d Ben, havin g b een l i quidate d in bankr up tcy and hav i ng no “pal pabl e ex i stence o r su c c essor, ” was nota re alparty in i nter estto a pr o ce edingu nd erthe BLBA and th us di smi ss ed th e ca se . 47 6 F
. 3d at 41 9. I n O ld Ben Co al th e C ou rth eld fur th ertha t “[ a] ny e nt i ty, s ucha s ani ns ur an ce c o m pan yN o. 10

- 2174 17

It also is w or th notin g tha t in Z eigl erC oalthe su rety sou g ht to 4 int ervene app roxi m atel y two w eeks aft er O ld B en C o a l w as dec i ded, no tove r a y ea r l at er, as i s the c as e he re . Too, i n Z eigle r Coalthe s ur ety was no t, as i n thi s c as e, the pr opone ntofthe proceedings. In other wo rds, the particu la r p roblem pres ente d he re, that for ap p ro xim ately fiv e y ear s there w as no real p arty in i nter es t pros ecuti ng the m o d ificat ion procee ding at i ss ue, was no tpr es en ti n Z eigl erC oal

. ora sure ty, thatwould b e p rej ud i ced by an award of bl ack l ung benefi ts i s e nti tl ed to i nter vene i n the adm i ni str ati ve proce edi ng with the r i ghts ofa party
. ” Id

. at42 0 ( ci ti ng 20 C. F. R. § 725. 360( a) ( 4) , (d )). I n l i ght o fthes e una m bi g uo us pr o no unc ement s i n O l d B en C oal , ev en ass um i ng f orthe sa ke ofar gum ent that the not i ce g i ven to Trave l er s i n 200 5 bythe DO L w as i n su ffi ci ent t o al er t Tr avel er s t o the ne ed to i nter ven e in the m odi fi cati on pro ceedi ng ati ssue i n thi s ca se, i t i s di ffi cult to un derst and w hy Tra vel erwait ed unti l o vera yea r after the Co ur th a nd e d d o wn the O ld Ben C oal deci si on t o see k inter venti on i n the m odi fi cati on pro ceedi ng. 4 W ha t appe ar s m o stpl ausible t o the Co ur t f r o m the re cor d ofthi s ca se ( and w hat Tr avel er s m or e or l ess has o w ned up to bo th i n i ts w ri tte n subm iss ion s t o th e C ou rtan d atora l arg u m en t in th is a p p ea l) is that Trave l er s m ade a tact i caldeci si on to s tayo ut o f the m odi fi cati on pro ceedi ng ati ssue here f oras l ong as it could do so. Fi na ll y, T r a v e lers sou gh t leave to i nt ervene i n the m odi fi cation p ro c ee d i ng o nl y when th e su r ety c o nc l ude d tha t it co ul d no l o ng ers i t o n the si del i nes without r i ski ng a fi nd i ng t hat the cl ai m f or18 N o. 10

- 2174

m odi fi cati on had bee n abandoned. Thi s be havi or, tho ugh no t co m m en dab l e, may be l eg i ti m at e, pr o vi ded th atthe del ay by Trave l er s in seeking to i nter vene i n thi s m att er did notprej ud i ce M r. and M rs . Cro w e. I n evaluatin g th e tim eli ne ss of th e requ e s t b y Trav elers to interven e in th e m od ification p roceed ing, th e C ou rt re cogniz es that “the m er e l apse o fti m e byi tse l fdoes not m ake an ap p li cation un tim ely, ” an d i ns te ad the C ou rt “m us t w eigh th e lapse of tim e in t h e l igh t of allthe circumst an ce s o fthe c as e. ” 7C Cha r l es Al anW r i g ht, Arthur R. M i l l er& M ary Kay Kane, Fe deralPra cti ce a nd Pro cedur e § 19 16 ( 3d ed

. 1 99 8 & Supp. 2 01 0)
. I n pa r ti cul ar, the Cou r t “mustc o ns i derwhethe r the a ppl i ca nt w as i n a po si ti o n t o s ee ki nt er ve nt i o n a t ane ar l i ers ta g e i n the case ”; thus, “[w ]h en the appli cant a pp ear s t o have been aw ar e o fthe l i ti gat i on but has d ela yed undu l y s eek i ng to i nter vene, co urts ge n er al l y hav e be en r el uctant to al l ow i nter venti on. ” Id

. ( co l l ec tingc as es )
. “ The mos t i m po r ta nt co ns i der at i o n” i n de te r m i ni ngi fa r eque stt o i nt er ve ne is t im ely is w h et h er “ d ela y in m ov in g for in te rv en tio n . . . pr ej udi ce [ d] the e xi st i ngpa r ti es t o the c as e” a nd, “[i ]f pr ej udi ce i s f o und, [ i nt er ve nt i o n] wi l l b e den i ed as unti m el y. ” Id

. H er e th ere i s l i tt l e se r i o us que st i o n tha t th e del ayb y Tr av el er s i n s ee k i ngl ea ve t o i nt er ve ne i n the m od ifica tio n p ro c ee d in g w as p rej u d icia l. Fo r ap p ro x im at el y thr ee y ea r s, whi l e th e m o di fic at i o n pr o ce eding w as artifi ciall y, an d i m p rop erly, kep t a liv e by th e A L Js as si gn ed to the matt er, M r . Cr o we was o bl i g ed to de f en dN o. 10

- 2174 19

I n thi s c onn ec t i on, i ts hould be poi nt ed o utthatduri ng the 5 period ofs om e thr ee ye ar s whenTr ave l er s was onno t i c e of its interes t i n th e m od ifi catio n p ro ceed ing , b u t refused to inter v en e in the p ro ceed ing , cou nsel for th e sur ety no ne the less were pe rm i t t ed t o fi l e bri efi ng i n the pr oc ee di ng. hi s a w ar d ofbene fi ts aga i nst a p h antom l i ti gant. 5 O n sim ilar fac ts , t h is C ou rth as rejec te d int er ve n tio n . See L a rs o n v . JP Mo rg a n C h a s e& Co
. , 53 0 F
. 3d 578, 58 3- 84 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( a f ai l ure by a pens ion fu n d to se ek to i nter vene i n a c l ass act i on unti l o verthr ee yea rs after i t knew o r sh ou ld have kno w n ofi ts i nter esti n the proc e e d i n g s , a n d a ft e r a s e t t l e me n to fth e c l a s s - wi d e c l a i ms ha d b ee n r ea ch ed an d jud gm en t o n the s et tl ement ha d been ente red , w as grou nd s to de ny i nt erven tion); Sok aog on C hippewa C m ty. v. B abbit t, 21 4 F
. 3d 941, 94 9- 50 (7th C ir. 2000) (an I nd ian tribe’s delay in seeking interventi on i n a l aw su it u n ti l m or e than fi ve yea rs after th e t r ib e ’ s me mbe r s kne w o r h a d r e a s o n t o kno w that thei r in teres ts m i ght b e a dvers el y a ff ecte d by the o utcom e of th e suit w as grou n d s to de ny i nt erven tion, p arti cul ar l y w here the propos ed i nter venti on w as a bel ate d devi ce t o b loc k a se ttl em ent o fthe l aw sui t)
. Tra vel er s, as n ot ed , m ad e a ta c tic al d ec isio n n o t to int er ve n e in thi s m att er unti l the el eve nth hour ( at l eas t) , an d n ow Trave l er s wil l have to l i ve w i th the consequences o f that deci si on . T he BRB ’ s o rderaffi rm i ng m odi fi cati on o fth e a wa r d o fb e n e fi t s t o Mr
. C r o we w i l l b e r e v e r s e d, and this c as e w i l l be re m anded with instr ucti ons f or the r e i ns t a t e men to fthe a wa r d.20 N o. 10

- 2174 I V . Concl usio n It w as err or for t h e B R B to refu se to d ism i s s t h e m od ifi ca ti o n pr o ce edinga nd t o pe r m i t Tr av el er s to i nt er ve ne i n the pr o ce eding . Acco r ding l y, the de ci si o n o fthe BRB i s R EVER S ED , a nd thi s mat t e r i s R EM A N DED t o the BRB f or r emand to the ALJ wi thi ns tr uct i o ns t o r eins ta te the A LJ’ s 2 001 aw ar d ofbl ack l ung benefi ts to M r. Cro w e.

H AMI L T ON, Cir cu i tJudg e . Ij o i n J u d g e Mu r p h y ’ s o p i ni o n f o r the c o ur t, r ev er singf o r r einstatem en t o fthe aw ar d ofbene fi ts i n f avo r ofthe lat e M r. C ro w e. Iwri te separ ate l y to add re ss a seco nd basi s f or re ver salth at is at l eas t a s powerful as that expla i ned by J ud ge M urphy. The BR B and the A LJ fou n d that i t was co nsi ste nt with “j u st ice under the A ct” to al l ow thi s m odi fi cati on pro ceedi ng to go f or w ar d. That deter m i nati on was bas ed on a m i sta ke. The m i sta ke l ed the A LJ and the BR B t o c re ate in c en tiv es to en c ou ra ge em p loy er s t o re fu se to co m p ly w i th fi nal paym ent o rder s, as r equi re d by l aw . Those incenti ves w i l l underm i ne r atherthan “r ender j usti ce u n d er th e A c t.” I n J une 2 001, aft era de ca de o fl i ti g at i o n i n a dm i ni str ati ve and j ud i ci alpro ceedi ngs, an AL J f ound that H ar o l d Cr o we w as e nt i tl ed to monthl y b en efi ts unde r theN o. 10

- 2174 21 Bl ac kLungAct, a s wel l a s $1 68 , 00 0 i n b ac k b en efi ts
. The A LJ or dered Zei gl er Coal to pay thos e benefi ts. Z eigl er Coal di d not ap p ea l any further

. I t a l so did notpay as or d er ed . In st ea d , i t d ec id ed to try to s t a r t a ll ove r ag ain b y fi l i ng a peti ti on t o m odi fy the award. That t acti c, i nd ulg ed by the AL J and ult i m ate l y e ven e ncoura ged bythe BRB, essen ti al l y e r as ed th e par ti es ’ e ff o r ts f o r the prece ding decade. I n m y vi ew , the A LJ and the BRB act ed arbi tr ar i l y a nd capr i ci ousl y b y consi deri ng a peti ti on to m odi fy a final paym ent o rderthatthe peti ti oner w as w i l l full y a nd l aw l ess l y di sob eying. L et m e be clear: m y obj ection i s not to Zeigler Coal’s dec i si o n t o s ee kmodi fi ca ti o n. A s Ju dge Ri ppl e ex pl ains i n detai l i n hi s di sse nt, the bl ack l ung benefi ts progr am pri zes acc uracyo verfi nal i ty to an un usual degr ee, i n c o r p o r a t i n gth e L o n g s h o r e a n d Ha rb o r Wo r k e r s ’ C o mp en sa tio n A c t’s br oa d m od ifica tio n au th or ity se t f o r th in 33 U
. S. C. § 9 22. S ee 30 U
. S. C. § 93 2; 20 C
. F. R. § 725. 310. I fZ e i g l e r Co a l b e l i e v e d the J un e 2 0 0 1 a wa r d o fb e ne fi ts was wro ng, i t was e nt i tl ed to seek modi fi ca ti o n. But Z eigl er C o a l w as no t legal ly en titl ed sim p ly to ignore the fi nal o rdero fpaym ent. W he n the fi na l o r de r wa s i s s ue d i n J un e 2 0 0 1 a nd was not appeal ed ors ta yed, bene fi ts w er e due to M r. Cro w e. The re l evantr egul ati on pro vi des, notsur pri si ngl y, that “benefi ts und erthe A ct s hal l be pai d w hen they b e c o me du e . ” 2 0 C. F
. R. § 72 5
. 5 0 2 ( a ) ( 1 )
. Ac c o r d, 3 3 U. S
. C. §§ 918, 92 1(a) (d uri ng j ud i ci alr evi ew , paym ent o f am ounts re q u ire d by a n award shal l notbe sta yed pend i ng fi nal deci si on, unl ess ord er ed by the c ourto n22 N o. 10

- 2174 showing ofthr eato fi rr eparabl e inj ury)
. The r egul ati on th ene xplains : “ Ben efi ts s ha l l b e co ns i der ed due a fte r the i ssuance ofan eff ecti ve or der r equi ri ng the paym ent o f benefi ts by a di str i ct di re cto r, ad m i ni str ati ve l aw j ud ge, Ben efi ts Re vi ew Bo ard, o rc o ur t, no twi th st an di ngthe pend ency ofa m oti on f or reco nsi derat i on be f or e a n ad m in i str ati ve l aw j ud ge oran a pp ealto the Board o r co ur t, ex ce pt th at be ne fi ts sh al l no t be co ns i der ed d ue w here the paym ent o fsuch be nefi ts has be en st aye d by the Benefi ts R ev iew Boar d orappropr i ate co urt. ” 2 0 C.F
. R. § 725. 502( a) ( 1)
. The r egul ati on g oes o n to st ate : “A n effe c tiv e o rd e r s h all re m ain in e ffec t u n les s itis vacat ed b y an adm i ni str ati ve l aw j ud ge on r eco nsi derat i o n, o r, u p o n r e v i e w u n d e r s e c t i o n 2 1 o fth e L HWCA, by the Be ne fi t s Re v i e w Bo a r d o r a n a pp r o pr i a t e c ourt, o r i s su per se ded bya n e ff ec ti ve o r deri ss ue d pur su an t to § 7 25. 310 [ the m odi fi cati on a uthor i ty]
. ” Id. The pen den cyo fa modi fi ca ti o n pe ti ti o n do es no t aff ec t th e fin alit y of a n aw ar d

. Hans e n v . Di r e c t or, OW CP , 98 4 F
. 2d 364, 36 7 ( 10th Cir
. 19 93) ( hol ding for p urpose s o f appell ate j uri sdic ti on that “ pend ency ofa m oti on t o m o di fy unde r § 92 2 do es no t des tr o y th e fi na l i ty of the Board’ s o rder ”) ; se e a l so N ational M ine s C orp. v. Ca rro ll, 64 F. 3d 135, 14 1 ( 3d Cir

. 19 95) (not i ng f orpurposes o f statu te of lim itations th at, “as a general rule, the m ere exi ste nce o fm odi fi catio n proc eedi ngs doe s no t a ff ect th e fina li ty of an existing aw ard of com p en sation” ). Con si st en t wi ththe se pr o vi si o ns o fl aw, the ALJ , the BR B, and J ud ge Rippl e a l l r eco gni ze that Zei gl erCoalwas v i o l a t i ngthe l a w b y r e fus i ngt o pa y the fi na l, u na pp e a l e d, and unstayed paym ent o rder

. S ee A pp . 13 ( A LJ deci si onN o. 10

- 2174 23 st at in g: “T h er e is n o q u e st ion th at [em p loy er ] sh ou ld ha ve co m m en ce d th e pay m en t o f be ne fi ts to th e claim ant w hen i t cho se to pursue m odi fi cati on r atherthan appeal th e d ecision on rem an d , ” an d de scribing th is as “disregard f o r the l aw”) ; App. 5

- 6 ( BRB de ci si o n a ffi r m i nga nd fi nd i ng no basis to di sag re e o n thi s i ssue) ; postat54 ( “the r e appe ar s to b e no s i g ni fi ca ntdi spu te tha t th e sure t y ’ s f a i l ur e t o p a y b e ne fi t s wh i l e the mo di fi c a ti on p roceed ing con tinu ed w as a viol ation of l aw ”). Ye t th e AL J and the BRB ch o se to i ndul g e th i s ta ct i c, a nd ev enf o und i t co ns i st en t wi th“ j us ti ce unde r th e Act. ” The A L J ex p lain ed h is re as on in g a s fo llo w s : “ H ow ev er , th is disregar d fo r the l aw worke d to the det ri m ent o fo ther coa l m i ni ng co m panie s r atherthan the cl ai m ant s i nce benefi ts w er e pai d the cl ai m ant bythe Dep ar tm ent o f Lab o r fr o m the Bl ackLungDi sabi l i tyTr us t F und whi c h i s fun de d thr o ugh a t a x o n the s e v e ra nce o f coal. ” App. 1 3- 14
. The ALJ wento n t o e xpl ain tha t th e i nt er es ti n a c c u r a c y o v e r fi n a l i t y a n d th e we i g h to fthe ( by then l i quidate d) e m plo yer’ s new evi dence showed th at m od i f i c at ion w ou ld se rv e “ j u st ice u n d er th e A c t.” Id. at 14. The BRB endor sed thi s r eas oni ng. That expl anati on by t h e A LJ a nd BRB was bui l t upon an er ro r that w as both fac tu aland l ega l

— a m isun d ersta nd i ng ab out the c onse quence ofZei gl er C oal ’ s t actic

— an d it i nvi tes em plo yer s a nd thei r sure ti es to r es i stpa y m en t i ndefi nitel y, unt i l the c l ai m an t di es a nd h is he irs giv e up . If Z eig ler C oa l d id n ot p ay m o n t h ly b e ne fi t s g o i ng f o r wa r d, the t r us t fun d ( pa i d f o r b y o ther co a l c o mpa ni e s ) wo ul d pa y, a nd i n f a c t di d pay,24 N o. 10

- 2174 M r. Cro w e. But the A L J’ s a nd BRB ’ s e xplanat i on si m plyo ver l oo ked Zei gl erCoal ’ s o bl i gat i on t o pay ba ck benefi ts und erthe finalpaym ent o rder

. Zei gl erCoal owed M r. Cro w e m or e than $16 8,0 00 und erthe fi nal paym ent or der. T he fund w oul d not pay bac k b enefi ts. 26 U
. S. C. § 9501( d)( 1) ( A ) ( fund s fro m Bl ack Lu ng Trust fu n d m ay be ex p en d ed f or ben efi ts only after a dete rm i nati on of e n titl em ent, notfro m the or i gi nal ti m e o f disabi l i ty)
. Thus the eff ect ofZei gl erC oa l’s deci si on t o d i s o b e y th e fi n a l p a y me n to r d e r wa s t o d e n y Mr
. C r o we th e $1 68 , 00 0 i n b ac kb en efi ts t o whi ch he ha d b ee n f o und enti tl ed. T h e A L J and the BR B over l oo ked thi s ce ntra l reali ty w he n th ey erroneou sly f ou nd th a t Z eigl er Coa l’ s disr ega rd o fthe l aw h urt onl y o therco alco m panie s ra therthan M r. Cro w e a nd hi s f am i l y. W hen an a dm i ni str ati ve age ncy has m ade such a n er ro r, i ts or der m ay not st an d

. E.g
. , SE Cv. C hen ery C o rp . , 31 8 U.S
. 80 , 94 ( 1943 ) ( “an or der m ay not sta nd i fthe age ncy has m i sco ncei ved th e law ”) ; a c c or d , She l t on v. O l d Be n Coal Co. , 93 3 F
. 2d 50 4, 5 08 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 1) ( reversingde ni alo fb l ac kl ung ben efi ts w he re BR B ap p li ed w rong legal stand ard ). Ze i g l erCo al ’ s dec i si o n n o t to obe y the fi na l pa y m en t or der was l aw l ess but eas y t o und er sta nd

. The l aw pro vi des tha t a m o di fi ca ti on o r der“ sh al l no t aff ec t an y com pensati on pre vi ousl y pai d,” with e xcepti ons not re lev an t h er e. 3 3 U .S.C . § 92 2. Z eig ler C oa l kn ew th at if i t co m pli ed w i th the fi nal p aym ent o rder, as i t was r equir ed to do, and l ate r w on a m odi fi cati on, i t co uld not r e c o v e r th e mo n e y i t h a d p a i d t o Mr
. C r o we u n d e r t he fi na l p aym en t orde r.N o. 10

- 2174 25 W hat t o do? The answer for Z eigl erCoalwas obv i ous, at l e a s t i f the BR B wa s wi l l i ng t o i nd ul g e s uc h l aw l ess be ha vi o r . By r efus i ng t o pa y unde r the fi na l pa y m en t or der whil e pursui ng a m odi fi c at ion, Zei gl erCoal del ay ed pay m en t o fb ac kb en efi ts i nde fi ni te l y, s hi fte d the cos t ofcurr ent m onthl y b enefi ts to the t rustfund , deni ed M r . Cr o we the b ack be ne fi ts he ha d b ee n a war ded, a nd f or ced hi m to l i ti gat e f orye ar s m or e. If th e B R B is w illing to co n s i d er a m od ifica tio n p et iti o n b y a n e m pl o y ertha t i s r efusingt o c o m pl y wi ththe BRB’ s o wn fi na l pa y m en t o r der, e m pl o y er s in many ca se s wi l l ha ve a s tr o ngfi na nc i ali nc ent i ve t o pur su e th ats ame l awl es s co ur se . The BRB’ s to l er an ce e ncou r a g e s em p loyers to try to d elay i nitial ben efi t d eterm i nati ons as l ong as possibl e, wh i l e m aki ng m in im al eff or ts t o defe nd the case s o n the m er i ts. Then, i fthey l ose w i th a spars e r eco rd thatwould neve r supp or t a re ve rs al on j u d icia l rev iew , th ey ca n d ec lin e t o a p p ea l, re fuse to p ay, and see k m odi fi cati on. That co urse re nd er s a l l o fthe cl ai m ants’ and the bl ack l ung benefi ts sys tem ’ s e ff or ts up to thatpoi nt a null i ty. Fo r th e e m p loy er , i t’s a n o-lo se p ro p os itio n, bu t it i m poses co sts o n eve rybody e l se i nvol ved in the p rogr am . ( 1) The i n te n d ed benefi ci ar i es and thei r f am i l i es are deni ed the fullbene fi ts they ar e e nti tl ed to r ecei ve, an d m us t k ee p l i ti g at i ngi nde fi ni te l y . ( 2) The t r us t fund pai d fo r by th e w hol e ind ustr y pi cks up the tab f or o ng o i ngmonthl y b en efi ts
. ( 3) The BRB a nd i ts a dm i ni s t r a t i v e l a w j ud g e s mus t e nt e r t a i n r o ut i ne pe t i t i ons to mod i fy b y s c o ffl a w e mpl o y e r s . I fmo di fi c a t i o n i s g r a nt e d,26 N o. 10

- 2174

As J udge Rippl e ex pl ai ns , the pr i nc i pl e thata m odi fi c at i on 1 s h o u l d “ r e n d e r j u s t i c e u n d e r th e a c t ” s t e ms fr o m th e S u p r e me Cour t ’ s dec i s i on underthe LH W CA in O ’K ee f f e v. A erojet

- G ene ra l Shipyar ds, Inc. , 40 4 U .S. 2 5 4 , 25 5 -5 6 (19 7 1 ). th e e m p loy er is w ay ah ea d . I f m od if i c a tio n is ev en tu ally denie d, the em plo yer i s no w or se off than i t w as w h en i t fi rs t l ost
. The BRB ’ s t ol er ance o fthi s t actic w illi m pose eve n heav i erburdens and l onge r del ays o n a pr ogr am al re ady kno w n f ordecades- l ong l i ti gat i on. A n adm i ni str ative prac tice t h a t creates suc h inc en tives is arbitrary and capri ci ous, and cannotse rv e the i nter est s o f“j usti ce u n d er th e A c t.” 1 I n re sponse to thi s r eas oni ng, Tra vel er s m ake s three pri nci pal poi nts, but they ar e not p er suasi ve. Fi rs t, it tr i es to c h ar acte ri ze Zei gl erCoal ’ s a cti ons as a r efusalto pay o n l y “ i n t e r i m” b e n e fi t s . B u tth e r e w a s n o th i n g“ i nt e r i m” ab o utthe b en efi ts a war ded un d erthe fi na l pa y m en t or der in 200 1. S eco nd , Trav ele rs poi nts o ut thatthe l aw p ro vid es a m ec h an ism for e n for c in g p ay m en t o rd er s, in 33 U
. S. C
. § 921(d ), w hich all ow s the govern m en t or a be ne fi ci ar y t o a ppl y f o r e nf o r ce m en t ofthe a war d i n a dist ri ct c ourt
. That’ s t rue, an d o u r re cor d does no t i nd i cate w h y M r. Cro w e o r the g ove rnm ent di d not s eek en f o r ce m en t o fthi s fi na l pa y m en t awar d s o o ne r . But the e xi ste n ce o fo ne co stl y e nfo rce m ent m echani sm

— f edera l l i ti gat i on

— do es no t preven t the BRB fr o m us i ng o the r s e ns ib l e p o l i c i e s t o i ns i s ttha ti t s o r de r s b e o b e y e d. Thir d, Trave l er s ar gu es that m odi fi cati on i s intended to be r eadi l y a vai l abl e t o al l parties and “notsubj ectN o. 10

- 2174 27 to arb itrar y l i m i tat i ons. ” Ap pel l ee’ s Br. 23
. W i th r espect, no th i ngin the a ppr o ac h Iwoul d t ak e o n thi s i ss ue is in c on sis te n t w ith th at ge n er al p oin t. T h e ru le I w ou ld apply

— re fuse t o enter tai n a pet i ti on t o m odi fy when the pet i ti oneri s di sob eying a fin alpaym ent o rder

— is c om p ar ab le t o s im ila r r u les th at co u rt s o fte n ap p ly to parti es w ho di sob ey thei r or ders. F o r ex ampl e, par ti es who ar e su bj ec t to an erron eo us and even a n unconsti tuti onal i nj uncti on m ust o bey that inj u n c tio n w h ile th ey se ek to h a v e itrev er se d or m od ifi ed. The f ac t th atthe i nj unc ti o n was e r r o ne o us o r unc o nst itu tio n al is n ota d efe n se ag ain st co n te m p t s an c tio n s. E.g
. , Wal ke rv. Ci ty of

Bir m i ngh am , 3 88 U. S
. 3 07( 19 67 ) ( affi r m i ng crim inal conte m p t con victions for viol ations of tem p orary inj uncti on that bl ock ed ci vi l r i ghts dem onst ra ti on)
. S i m il ar l y, a c o nv i ct ed pr i so ne r who e sc apes fr o m pr i so n a nd beco m es a fugi ti ve can exp ect that hi s pendingappealo f hi s co nvi cti on w i l l be di sm i sse d, re gar dle ss ofthe str ength ofhi s a rgum ents on the m er i ts, and eve n if h e m i ght b e in n oc en t. E.g
. , O rtega -R o drig uez v. U n ited S ta tes , 507 U
. S. 234, 23 9- 42 ( 1993 ) ( col l ecting ca ses )
. A party to a ci vi l cas e w ho wil l full y di sob eys co urt or ders ofany ki nd , such a s thos e e nfo rcing di sco ver y obl i gat i ons, can expect di sm i ssa l ora defa ultj ud gm ent a s a sa ncti on, no m att erthe str ength ofhercl ai m s o r defe nses. I n thes e s i tuati ons , c ourt s re cogni ze that i ftheyto l er ate wil l ful disobedi ence of thei r or ders, and i ftheyl eave thei r door s a nd pro cess es op en to th os e w h o w ou ld flo u t t h eir au th or ity , th eir or ders w ill n ot be obeye d. Theirduti es to othe r parti es and thei r own i nsti tuti onal obl i gat i ons re quir e s uch st r o ngs an ct i o ns , g i ve n s uffi ci en t pr o vo ca ti o n.28 N o. 10

- 2174 Anal o g o us pr i nc i pl es a ppl y he r e, no twi th st an di ngthe di ff e r e nt b a l a nc e b e t we e n fi na l i t y a nd a c c ur a c y tha t has be ens tr uckunde r the Bl ac kLungBe nefi ts Act
. The i ssue here i s no t the ac curacyo r fi nal i ty ofBRB deci si ons, but the i ntegr i ty of th ose deci si ons. By r efusi ng to c on sid er a p et itio n to m od ify b y a p ar ty w h o is w illfu l l y d iso b ey in g a fina l p ay m en t o rd er , th e B R B w ou ld prom ote j u st ice und erthe A ct. Em plo yer s would have a s tr ong i ncenti ve to l i ti gat e o ri gi nal cla im s vi gor ousl y, i ftheywant to conte st them , and a strongi ncenti ve to c o mpl y wi th f i n a l p a y me n to r d e r s . I n th i s c a s e , h o wev er, the BRB t o l er at ed su chwi l l fuldi sobe di en ce o fthe fi nal paym en t or der. The r esul t i s t o encour age such disobedi ence ofthe BR B’s ow n final paym ent o rder s, to r ewa r d e ve n mor e pr o l o ng ed an d was te full i ti g ation, an d to p u t m or e b u rd en s o n be n efic iar ies an d th eir fam il i es , o n o th ere m pl o y er s who ho no r the i r o bl i g at i o ns ( and m ay now feeltheyhav e been tak en f orf oo l s by do i ngs o ) , a nd o n the e nt i r e Bl a c kLu ngBenef i t Acta dm i ni str ati ve apparatus. The bestar gum ent a gai nst m y v i ew i s that e xplai ned so wel l b y J udg e Ri ppl e i n h i s d iss en t: the ALJ a nd BR B have the autho ri ty to re fuse t o consi der a peti ti on f orm odi fi cati on th at i s a n abuse ofthe proce ss, se e Ol d Be n C o a l C o . v . Di r e c t o r, OW CP (Hi l l i ar d) , 2 92 F. 3d 53 3, 547 (7th Ci r . 2 00 2) ( ac k no wl edg i ngpo ss ibi l i tyb ut ho l di ng tha t a g e nc y a b us e d di s c r e t i o n b y r e fus i ng to con side r pet iti on to m od ify fi led after claim a n t died ), butthe i r t as ki s to b al an ce many c o m pet i ngv al ue s an d pol i ci es i n m aki ng such deci si ons; co urts sho uld l eave th atb al an ci ngt o the s o und di sc r et i o n o fthe ALJ a nd theN o. 10

- 2174 29 BR B. J ud ge Rippl e s ees no abuse oft h at disc re ti on her e, especi al l y when v iew ed i n hi nd si ght, wh en we know tha ta ft e r nea r l y a no the r de c a de o fl i t i g a t i o n, the ALJ changed hi s m i nd abo ut M r. Crow e’ s e l i gibi l i ty f orbene

fi ts. The g en er alpo i ntabo utthe r o l es o fthe A L J an d BRB i s cor re ct, and i n other conte xts they a re enti tl ed to substa nti all eeway i n exer ci si ng tha t di scr eti on. A cc or d , H illia rd, 292 F .3 d at54 7; id

. at55 4- 55 ( W oo d, J
. , di ssenting) ( ar gui ng f ordefer ence to age ncy’ s deci si on to deny m odi fi cati on t o avo i d piec em eall i ti gat i on that w oul d exhaust cl ai m ants’ r eso urces )
. Ir espect full y d i sa g r e e , ho we v e r, a s a pp l i e d t o the pr o b l e ms posed by thi s l aw l ess , wil l ful re fusalto co m p ly w i th a fi nal p ay m en t o rd er . First, th e A L J an d B R B j u st ified th eir dec i si o ns b y e r r o ne o us l y o ve r l o o k i ngthe e ff ec t th atthe em plo yer ’ s t acti c had on the c l ai m ant. M or e fun dam ental, the i ncenti ves cre ate d b y the BRB ’ s a pp ro ach to thi s ca se ar e s i m plynotco nsi ste nt with the purpos es ofthe Blac k Lung Benefi ts A ct. W hi l e th e B R B m ay ex er c ise d isc re ti o n i n su c h m at te rs , th e e m p loy er ’s t ac tic o frefus i ngt o pa y a s o r der ed whi l e al so i nv o k i ng th e m o d ifica tio n rem ed y w as so co rro siv e t h at it re quir ed a m uch str onge r re sponse than the ve rba l tuttut a dm i ni ste re d by the A LJ. Fa r m or e m eani n gfu l than th o s e me r e w o r d s w a s th e d e c i s i o n t o g i v e th e e mpl o y e r ( no w i t s s ur e t y ) a l l the r e wa rds i t c o ul d h o pe to a ch i ev e bythi s cy ni ca l a nd c o l d-bl o o ded t ac ti c. The BR B has al l owed its u n derst andabl e desi re f oracc uracy to be tw i ste d here i nto a too l t o defe at the purpos e o f the s tatute.30 N o. 10

- 2174 Ia l s o do n o tb e l i e v e thatthe que s t i o n s ho ul d b e a ppr o ac he d fr o m the p erspe ct i ve o fwhatthe ALJ a nd BRB l ea r ne d abo utthe m er i ts o fthe unde r l y i ngi ss ue ove r the l ong cour se of the m odi fi cati on p ro ceedi ngs. The re l evantp er specti ve i s the ti m e the sc offl aw em plo yer files the pe t i t i o n f o r mo di fi c a t i o n. T ha t ’ s wh e n the ALJ m u st d ec id e w h et h er to en te rt ain th e p r o c ee d in g a t a ll, be f o r e he o r s he kno ws whatthe new e vi den ce might show. By the sam e token, a cour t deci ding w hetherto pu ni sh part i es w h o disobeye d a te m pora ryi nj uncti on does not w ai t unti l the u ltim ate m er i ts ofthe i nj uncti on ar e r eso l ved, and an appel l ate co urt deci ding w hether to dism i ss an appealby a fugi ti ve- d efe n dant does not consi der fullbr i efi ng o n the m er i ts. I n th e e n d , I d o n o t k n o w w h e th e r Mr
. C r o we su ffered from black l un g d isease or n ot. A L Js and doc tors w ho a re m uch bett ersui ted to answer that quest i on have disa gr eed o verthe past 2 0 y ear s. W hat I do know i s that a fi n a l d e c i s i o n w a s ma d e i n 2 0 0 1 a n d Mr
. C r o we ’ s e mplo ye r w as or dered to pay benefi ts to hi m . The em plo yer unlaw fu ll y r efused, and eve r si nce then, the age ncy h a s b e e n i n d u l g i n gth i s r e fu s a l to co m pl y wi th i t s o wn o r de r, the r e b y e nc o ur a g i ngo the r s t o do the s a me. T ha t approach si m plyi s not c on si ste nt with “j usti ce under the Act. ” F orthi s r eas on, as wellas that e x p lained by J ud ge M urphy, Ico ncur i n the re m and ofthi s ca se.N o. 10

- 2174 31

S e e Je s s e e v . Di r . , OWCP , 5 F. 3d 7 23 , 72 5 ( 4th Ci r. 19 93 ) ( “[ T] he 1

‘ pri nc i pl e of final i t y’ j us tdoe s no tappl y t o Lon gs hor e Actan d bl ac k l ung c l ai m s as i td oe s in or di nar y la wsui t s . ” ( c i t i ng Banks v . C h ic ag o G ra in Trim m er s A ss ’n , 39 0 U .S. 4 5 9 , 46 1 -6 5 (19 6 8 ))). Ol d Be n Co a l Co
. v . Di r. , OW CP ( H i l l i ard ) , 292 F. 3d 533, 535 2 (7 th C ir . 20 0 2 ). R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e, di ss en ti ng. T he Bl ac kLung B en efi ts A ct, 30 U
. S. C
. §§ 901-45, and the regu lato ry schem e that a cco m p an i es i t, cr eat e a co m pli cate d proces s f o r a d j u d i c a t i n gb e n e fi t s c l a i ms b y c o a l i nd u s t r y e mp l o y e e s w h o b e c o me d i s a b l e d a s a r e s u l to fth e i r e mplo ym ent. A s we have note d on num er ous o ccasi ons, i n cr ea ting thi s s yst em , Congr ess del iber ate l y pr i zed ac c u ra c y ov er fina lity . Th e s ta tu te ac c om p lish es th is tas k b y a l l owing a ge n c y r eexam i nati on o fcl ai m s t o a d e g r e e f a r e x c e e d i n gth e n o r m i n o u r j u d i c i a ls y s t e m. 1 I n the case befor e us, i t t oo k th e agency and the cour ts m or e t h an tw en ty ye ar s t o a ss es s t h e f a c t s o f H ar old Crowe’s cl ai m s a nd to r each the ul ti m ate co n c l usi on th at h e w as n oten tit led t o b e n efit s u n d er th e A c t. In th o se ye ar s, the a g en cyha s ta k env ar i o us po si ti o ns o n the f ac tu ala nd l eg ali ss ue s ats ta k e, a nd the pa r tyo ppo sing the b enefi ts cl ai m h as c h anged fro m the em plo yerco al c o mp a n y, t o a n u n k n o wne n t i t y l i t i g a t i n gi n th e n a me of the now -b a n k rup t coal com p an y, to a suret y-hold er, w hi ch, we l ear ned at o ra l ar gu m en t, cl ai m s in other l i ti gat i on now pend i ng notto hol d the s ure ty i n thi s ca se. Gi ve n thi s “l o nga nd t o r tu o us h i st o r y, ” Iunde r st an d 2 m y c o l l ea g ue s’ a ve r si o n t o a s y st em th ata l l o wed the32 N o. 10

- 2174 age ncy a nd the defe nd i ng p ar ty to p ursue the c ours e e ach has an d a r es ul t th at den i es be ne fi ts to H ar o l d C row e’s w i dow and chi l dr en . I neve rthel ess m ust co ncl ud e that the s t a t ut e , the r e g ul a t i o ns a nd o ur pr e c e de ntal l ow such a cour se. Consequentl y, Ir espect full y m ust di sag re e w i th the cour t’ s co ncl usi on that the ag ency w as re quir ed to dism i ss the m odi fi cati on peti tio n . B ecause Ifurther c on c lu d e t h at M rs . C ro w e’ s a d d itio n al a rg u m en ts fail, Iwoul d de ny the pe ti ti o n.

I Th e p r e s e ntc a s e i mpl i c a t e s a r el a t i v e l y u ni qu e a nd , to a s i gni fi cant deg re e, co unter- i ntui ti ve m odi fi cati on author i ty ofadm i ni str ati ve author i ti es re sp onsibl e f or th e i mp l e me n t a t i o n o fth e b l a c kl u n gb e n e fi t s p r o g r a m. Tha t au th o r i tyi s be stun d erstood in the c o nt ex t o fthe ov er all re gu lat or y s c h em e. I th er efo re p re fac e m y a n aly sis ofthi s ca se w i th a ske tch o fthe ov er all adm i ni str ati ve str ucture.

A . Th e Black Lu n g Ben efit s A ct an d A m en d m en ts I n 196 9, r espondi ng to a singl e m i ne expl osi on that ki l l ed sev enty- ei ght m i ners i n Far m i ngto n, W estVi rg i ni a, a nd un r e l a t e d mi ne a c c i de nt s i n the f o l l o wi ng y e a r that too k the l i ves ofan a dd i ti onal17 0 m i n er s, Congr ess enact e d the fi r s tF e de r a l Co a l Mi ne He a l th a nd S a f ety A c t (“F CM H SA”), Pub. L. N o. 91

- 173, 83 S tat
. 74 2 (1969) (cod ified as am en d ed at 30 U
. S. C
. §§ 8 0 1 -9 00). The FCM H SA ai m ed to “pro tectthe heal th an d safetyN o. 10

- 2174 33 ofco alm i ners , and t o com bat the s tea dy to l l o fl i f e, l i m b, an d lun g, w h ich te rro riz es so m an y u n for tu n at e f a m ilies .” H . Re p . N o . 91 -56 3 a t 2 (19 69 ), r epr i nt e d i n 1969 U
. S. C.C .A
. N
. 25 03, 25 03. I n additi on t o a s er i es of r efo r m s i n th e pr ev i o us f ede r al m i ne sa f ety pr o g ram , the F CM H S A cr ea te d the Nat i o n’ s fi r stfeder ale nt i tl ement prog ra m f orm i ners . The l egi sl ato rs bel i eve d the pro gr am to be a “satisfactory m ean s of com p en sating m iners w h o w er e in c ap ac ita te d by res p ira b l e d ise as es , as w ell as th e su r vi ving wi do ws an d ch i l dr en o f m iners who h ad d ied fr om the dread bl ack l ung. ” S
. Rep. N o. 92

- 743 at 3 (19 72 ), r epr i nt e d i n 1972 U
. S. C.C. A
. N
. 2 30 5, 2307 ( describ in g the 19 69 FCM H SA). The FCM H SA veste d r es po ns ibi l i tyf o r a dm iniste r i ngthe pr o g r am i n the Social Secu rity A d m inistration (“SSA ”); ben efi ts w ere p aid from SSA ’s general fund s. L ess th an three yea rs after the A ct’s p assa ge, claim s for ben efi t s w e re m ore than thr ee ti m es the a nti ci pated l eve l s. Even s o, t h e rat e ofdeni al s bythe SS A f orbene fi ts und erthat fi rs t a ct w as m or e t h an fifty p er c en t n at ion w id e. Id. I n re sponse, Congr ess m odi fi ed and expa n d ed subst anti al l y the pro gr am i n the Blac k Lung Benefi ts A ct o f 1972 ( “the A ct”) , Pub. L. N o. 92 -30 3, 86 S tat
. 15 0 ( codi fi ed as am en d ed at 30 U .S.C
. §§ 90 1-4 5). Inth is “ re m ed ial law ,” Congre ss att em pted to ensure tha t “t he cas es w hi ch sh o ul d b e co m pen sa te d[ ] wi l l b e co m pen sa ted. I n the abse nce o fdefi ni ti ve m edi calco ncl usi ons th er e is a cl ear need to r eso l ve doubts i n f avo r ofthe disabl ed m in er o r h i s s u r v i v o r s . ” S
. R e p . No
. 9 2

- 74 3 a t1 1 , 1 9 7 2 U. S
. C
. C
. A. N. at 2315
.34 N o. 10

- 2174

T he 197 2 A ct m ov ed the tra nsition fro m S S A t o the D ep art- 3 m ent ofLab or from D ece m ber 3 1 , 1 9 72, to D ece m ber 31, 1973. P u b

. L
. N o . 9 2 -3 0 3 , § 5 (2 ), 8 6 S t a t
. a t 1 5 5
. M u c h o f t h e S S A ’s re m ai ni ng a uthor i t y with r es pec tto t he p re - 19 73 c l ai m s e ven t ua lly w a s tr a n sfe rr ed to th e D ep a rt m en t of L a b o r in 1 9 9 7
. S ee B lack L u ng C on solid atio n o f A d m inistra tiv e R esp on sibility A ct, Pub

. L. N o. 107- 275, 116 St at. 1925 ( 2002 ) (c o d ifie d as a m en d ed at 30 U .S.C . §§ 92 1 -2 4 ). “T he t e r m ‘ p ne u m oco nio sis’ m ean s a chr on ic d u st disea se 4 of the l ung and i t s s equel ae , i nc l udi ng re s pi ra t or y and p u lm onary im p a irm ents , ari si ng ou t ofcoal m ine em ploym ent. ” 30 U
. S. C. § 902(b ) (add it ion by the Blac k L ung Benefit s R ef orm A ct o f 19 7 7, see20 C .F .R . § 7 2 5 .1(f)). I n the 1972 A ct, Congr es s ga ve speci fi c di re cti on t o b ot h t he S SA, w hi ch m ai ntai ned i ts j uri sdic ti on o verpre 1974 cl ai m s, and to the Dep artm ent o fLabor, wh i ch 3 ha ndl ed ne w cl ai m s fi l ed i n 1 974 an d, l at er, the a dm i ni str ati ve re sponsibi l i ti es f orthe expansi on o fthe federa l en titl e m e n t p rogram . Th ese step s w ere taken i n p art because o fthe perce pti on that the ea rl i erp rogr am had f a i l e d t o c o mpe ns a t e i n a pp r o pr i a t e c a s e s . Th e 1 9 7 2 A ct br o ade ne d c o ve rage byr equi r i ngthe a g en ci es t o c o nside r c e rtain typ es of evi d en ce in m aking ben efi ts d eterm i na ti o ns, inc l udi ngl ayt es ti m o ny ; i t al so pr o hibi te d the ag en ci es fr o m r el y i ngo n n eg at i ve x- r ay s a s t he e xc l usiv e e vid e n c e t o d en y a cla im
. See 30 U
. S. C
. § 923(b). I t fur th ere xpa nde d the de fi ni ti o n o ft o ta l di sabi l i tydue to pneum oco ni osi s to r each m ore m i ners and br oadened 4 th e p re su m p tio n s fa vo rin g t h e m in er . See i d. § 902(f)

. The 1977am endm ents to the 1 972 A ct further l iber al i zed the sta nd ar ds f ores tabl i shi ng el i gibi l i ty byN o. 10

- 2174 35

S eeJoh n S. L o p a tt o III , The Fede ra l Bl ackLung P rogra m : A 1983 5 P ri m er, 85 W . V a . L . R ev . 67 7, 67 8 & n n .10 -1 1 (19 8 3 ). expand i ng the defi ni ti on o fm i ners , e xtending add i ti onal presum pti ons i n f avo r of cl ai m ants and c re ati ng the Bl ack L u n g D isa b ility T ru st Fu n d

. See B lackLung Benefi ts Ref or m A ct o f19 77, Pub. L. N o. 95

- 239, 92 S tat
. 95 ( 1978 ) (c od ified as am en d ed in s c at te re d se c tio n s o f 26 U .S.C ., 29 U
. S. C. and 30 U .S.C. )
. I n additi on, the A ct r equi re d th e D ep ar tmento fLabo r t o r ee xa m i ne pe ndi nga nd a lread y d enied cl ai m s a t the r eq u es t of the cl ai m ant under sta nd ar ds at l eas t a s g ener ous a s those i n effect i n 197 3. Id. §§ 2 ( c) , 1 5. Ev ena s th e su bs ta nt i ve g r o und s a nd the pr esum pti ons f orenti tlem ent e xpand ed, the A ct conti nued to pl ace the b u rd en o n the m i ner to prove the e xi ste nce o fp n eu m oco ni osi s, and the l egi sl ati ve hi sto rym ade apparent that “a m er e showing ofa re spi ra tor y o r pul m o na r y i m pai r m en t wi l l no t be s uffi ci en t to est abl i sh a cl ai m f orbene fi ts. ” S
. Rep. N o. 92

- 743 at 13, 1972 U
. S. C.C. A
. N
. at 2317
. A fter thi s ser i es of in c re asi n g l y g e n e r o u s a me n d me n t s t o th e o r i g i n a l e n t i t l ement prog ra m , and l ar gel y in re sponse to m ounti ng defi ci ts i n the Tr us t F un d, the Act wa s a men de d i n 1981 to cre ate m or e r est ri cti ve el i gibi l i ty re quir em ents. S pec ifi- 5 c a l l y, th r e e o u to f th e fi v e p r e s u mp t i o n s i n f a v o r o fc l a i mants w er e e l i m i nated; r ule s bind i ng the ag ency to acc ep t c er ta in p os itiv e x -ra y d iag n o se s o f p n eu m oc on ios is w er e e lim in at ed

. See B l ack Lu ng Benefi ts A m endm ents of19 81, Pub. L. N o. 97

- 119, Ti tl e I I, 9 5 St at . 1 635, 16 43 ( 1981 ) ( codi fi ed as am ended in scat te re d sect i ons of30 U .S.C .); New man v. Di r . , OW CP , 745 F.2d 11 62 , 116 4 n .2 (8th C ir. 1984).36 N o. 10

- 2174

F or a h i st o r y of the ev olu tion of this pr ov ision to p erm it 6 m od ific ati on in progres si vely m ore c ir cum st ances , s ee Banks v. C h ic ag o G ra in Trim m er s A ss ’n , 39 0 U .S. 4 5 9 , 46 1 -6 4 (19 6 8 ). Inad d itio n to th e A c t’s s u b s t an tiv e p ro vis ion s, it al so pr o vi ded f o r di st i nc t admi ni st r at i ve s tr uctur es an d pr o ce dur alr i g ht s f o r c l ai m ants
. Be g i nni ngwi ththe or i gi nal 19 69 A ct, the prog ra m i ncor pora ted byr efer ence m any o fthe adj ud i cati on pro ced ures under the Longs ho r e a nd Ha rb o r Wo r k e r s ’ Co mpe ns a t i o n Act, 3 3 U. S
. C. §§ 90 1-50 ( “the Longshor e Act”) , al so adm i ni ste re d by th e Depa r tmento fLabo r . T hos e pr o ce dur es i nc l ude the ri ght t o a t ri al u n der the A dm i ni str ati ve Pro cedures A c t a n d to bo th ad m in ist ra tiv e a n d j u d icia l ap p ea ls. See 33 U. S
. C. §§ 9 19 ( d) , 9 21 ; 5 U. S
. C. § 5 54
. I n a ddi ti o n, a nd p arti cul ar l y r el ev an t to the c as e be f o r e us , s i nc e 19 27, the Lo ng sh o r e Act ha s incl ude d a pr o vi si o n pe r m i tt i ng m odi fi cati on o fa fi nal deci si on o n benefi ts enti tl em ent. See 33 U. S
. C
. § 9 2 2
. B y th e t i me th e p r o c e d u r e s o fthe Longshor e Act had b een i ncor pora ted i nto the b l ack l ungpr o g r am , the modi fi ca ti o n pr o vi si o n a l l o wed a ny party, o r the di str i ct di re cto r on hi s o w n i nitiat i ve, “a t an y tim e pri orto o ne ye arafterthe date o fthe l astpaym ent o fco m pensati on, wh ethero r n ot a com pensati on o r derha s be eni ss ue d, o r a t an y t i m e pr i o r t o o ne yea r afterthe rej ecti on o fa cl ai m , ” t o see k rev i ew o f “a c o m p e ns ation cas e in accord an ce w ith th e proc ed ure p re sc rib ed (for or igin al c laim s),” fo r th e p u rp os e o f m od ifyin g t h e o rd er . Id. The g r o unds f o r m o di fi ca ti on are 6 “a change i n condi ti ons or. . . a m ist ake i n a dete rm i nati on o ff act. ” Id.N o. 10

- 2174 37

Ear l i er r eg ul at i ons wer e pro m ul gat ed, ofc our s e, by the 7 Secr etar y ofH eal th, E du cat ion, an d W el f are, u nd er the authority to ad ju d i ca te cla im s fro m th e i n iti a l a p p lic a tio n p er io d

. S ee P i ttson C oal G ro u p v. Seb ben , 48 8 U .S. 105 , 10 8-11 ( 19 88 ) (disc us s i ng g en er al l y the hi s t or i c al se ri es ofr eg ul at i ons by the tw o d ep a rt m en ts a n d th ei r r el a tio n sh ip s to o n e a n o th er ). T he l egislati ve h istory f or th e 1 9 69 FC M H SA offers n ot hi ng speci fi cal l y t o expla i n the choi ce t o i ncor pora te the Longs hore A c t’ s pro cedures, m uch l ess the m odi fi catio n au th or ity
. See H
. R
. Rep
. N o. 91 -16 1 (1969) ( C onf. R ep .), r epr i nt e d i n 1969 U
. S. C.C. A
. N
. 25 78, 26 06 ( st ating, w i thout el abor ati on , that“the appli cabl e pr ovi si ons of th e [L on gs h or e] a c t o f M ar c h 4, 19 27, as a m en d ed , sh all be ap p li cab le” to cl aim s fil e d on or after J an ua ry 1, 1973). The f or ego i ng ac c ou nt dem onst ra tes thatther e hav e been si gni fi cant c hang es to the s ubstance o fthe A ct, m any o fwh i ch expanded the A ct’ s s cope o fco ve ra ge . A consta nt, ho wev er, ha s be enthe Act ’ s i nt eg r at i o n o fthe Lo ng sh o r e A ct ’ s pr o ce dur es t o the l o ng - te r m b l ac kl ung benefi ts cl ai m s, i ncl ud i ng the m odi fi cati on a uthor i ty.

B . T he Re g ul a t i o ns Pursuant t o the Act, the Se cre ta ry o fLabor devel oped 7 ane xt en si ve r egul at o r y s ch eme. I n b r i ef, i n i ts c ur r en t f or m , i t r equi re s cl ai m s t o be pr ese n ted fi rs t t o a di str i ct dir ecto r i n the Offi ce o fW or ker s’ Com pensati on Pr og r ams ( “OWC P” ) o fthe De par tmento fLabor, who wi l l i ss ue a n o rd er reg ar di nge nt i tl ementt o b en efi ts
. The cl aim an t o r the o perat or( ori ts succes sor ) m ay peti ti on38 N o. 10

- 2174

The reg u la ti ons were am ended s ub st anti vely i n D ece m ber 8 2 0 0 0 t o s e tl i m i t s o n the q ua nt i t y a nd q ua l i t y ofe vi de nc e that can be s ub m it ted i n a m od ific ati on proceed in g . H ow ever, thos e l i m i t at i ons wer e notappl i c abl e t o c l ai m s pe ndi ng on Ja n u a ry 1 9 , 2 0 0 1 , a s M r. C r o w e ’s w a s. S ee65 Fed. Reg
. 79920, 8 0 0 5 7, 80 0 6 9 (D ec . 20 , 20 0 0 ); 20 C .F .R
. § 7 2 5 .2(c ) (20 1 0 ); Z eigle r Co a l Co
. v . OWCP , 49 0 F
. 3d 6 09 , 61 5 n
. 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07 ) ( not i ng tha t w hi c h o f the v ario u s rules g ov ern s a b lack lun g claim d ep en d s u p o n w h en th e i n iti a l cl a im is file d ). T he statu te p ro v id es tha t the m od ifi catio n a u tho rity r e sts 9 with the “de put y c om m i s s i on er,” a pos i t i on thati s no w occ upi ed by the “di s t ri c tdi re c t or ” i n the DO L. W e have l ong he l d t hatth e re gul at i ons appr opr i at el y e xt en d m odi fi c at i on author i t y t o the ALJs th at c onduc the ar i ngs whenthe m i s t ake o f fac t a lle g ed w a s c o m m i t t e d b y an A L J. S e e E i f l e rv . OWCP , 9 2 6 F .2d 66 3 , 66 5 -6 6 (7t h C ir . 19 9 1 ). f ora tr i albefor e a n A LJ, r evi ew by t h e Benefi ts Revi ew Board ( “BRB ” o r “Boar d”) and rev i ew i n an appro pri ate C ou rtof A p p ea ls. See 20 C. F. R. §§ 72 5. 400- 83 ( Subpart s E an d F). W i thr e s pe c tt o mo di fi c a t i o n, the r e g ul a t i o ns i n pl a ce i n 2000, a t th e ti m e o fthe modi fi ca ti o n pe ti ti o n i n the pr es en t ca se , a dded l i tt l e be yon d tha t spe ci fi ed i n the st at u te
. See 20 C. F. R. § 425. 310 ( 2000 )
. In add i ti on t o 8 st at i ngtha t th e “modi fi ca ti o n pr o ce eding [ ] s ha ll b e co ndu cted i n acco rdan c e with the provi si ons ofthi s par t a s ap p ro p ria te ,” th e a p p lica b le re gu lat ion s s p e c ifica lly provi de that “[ a] dd i ti onalev i dence m ay be s ubm i tte d by an y pa rty or r eq u e s t e d by” th e d ecisionm aker. 9 Id. § 725.310(b) ( 2000 ).N o. 10

- 2174 39 C . Preced en ts I n terpreti n g the M od if ication A u thority The Suprem e Cour t has l ong und er sto od the m odi fi cati on prov i si on i n the sta tute to conve y b ro ad author i ty. I n B ank s v. C hicago G rain Tri m m ers A ss ’n , 39 0 U
. S. 459, 46 1- 64 ( 1968 ) , a cl ai m ant fi l ed a s eco nd peti tion fo r benefi ts, al l eg i nga c om p le te l y di ff er en t th eo r y o fl i ab i l i tya nd d ifferent evid en ce in su p p ort of th at th eory. T he cou rt o fa p p e a l s h a d r ej e c t e d th e s e c o n d p e t i t i o n, c o n cl udi ng i twa s b a r r e d b y r e s j u d i c a t a. The S u p r e me C o u r t, h o weve r, hel d that the se cond peti ti on was an a pp ro pr i ate re quest form odi fi cati on withi n the auth ori ty gr anted by the sta tute. Speci fi cal l y, the Cour t a c knowle dged that am ong the m i sta kes o ff act th e statute per m i tte d th e agen cy to correct w as a m istake of ulti m a tef act

— i.e., th e l i ab i l i tyo fthe em pl o y er . I t i s si g ni fi ca nttha t th e bro ad read i ng o fthe m odi fi cati on a uthor i ty i n the Longsh o r e Act i n Banks pre dates the deci si on o fCongr ess to i nc o r po r at e i ts pr o cedur es i nt o the fi r stb l ac kl ung prog ra m , i n the FCM H SA of19 69. S ev er a ly e a r s l a t er, i n O ’Keeffe v. A erojet-G enera l Sh ipy a rds, Inc. , 404 U .S. 25 4 (1 97 1 ) (p er cu ria m ), th e C ou rtag ain i nt er pr et ed br o adl y the modi fi ca ti o n pr o vi si o n: [ O] n i ts f ac e, the s ec ti o n p erm it s a r eo pen i ng w ith in on e y ea r “b ec au se of a m ist ak e in a d et er m inati on o ff act. ” There i s no l i m i tat i on t o parti cul ar f actualer ro rs , o r to case s invol vi ng new evi dence orchange d ci rcum sta nces. The [Longsho re ] A ct a t o ne t i m e di d a utho r i ze r eo pen i ngonly on th e “gr ound ofa change in co nd i ti ons, ” 4 4 S tat
. 14 37, but was a m en ded i n 193 4 e xpressl y t o “br oaden40 N o. 10

- 2174 the g round s o n w hi ch a depu ty com m i ssi oner ca n modi fy a n a war d .

. . when ch an g ed co ndi ti o ns ora m i stake i n a dete rm i nati on o ff act m ake s such m odi fi cati on desirabl e in or der t o re nd er j usti ce under the a ct. ” S
. Rep. N o. 58 8, 73 d C on g., 2d Se ss ., 3-4 (19 34 ); H .R . Re p . N o. 12 44 , 73d C on g., 2 d S e s s . , 4 ( 1 9 3 4 )
. The pl a i n i mpo r to fthi s a men dm ent was to ve st [ the a gency ] with b ro ad dis cre ti o n t o c o r r ec t m i st ak es o ff ac t, whethe r de m o nstr ate d by wholl y new evi dence, cum ula ti ve ev id en c e, or m er ely fu rt h er refle c tio n on th e e vide nc e i ni t i a l l y s ub mi t t e d. Id. a t 25 5- 56. T he c o ur t o fa ppea l s i n O ’Keef fehad re fused mod i fi c a t i o n whe r e n o n e w e v i de nc e h a d b e e n pr e s e nt e d, concl ud i ng tha t “ ‘ the s tatute s i m plydoes notco nfe r author i ty up on the Deputy Com m i ssi onerto r ecei ve ad d itio n al bu t cu m u lat ive ev id en c e an d c h an g e h is m i nd

. ’ ” Id. at 254-55 (qu oting th e Fifth Circu it’ s op inion). The Suprem e Cour t’ s r eve rs alo fthatdeci si on di re cted that “not onl y c oul d m odi fi cati on be used to ch all enge the ul ti m ate d ete rm i nati on o fl i abi l i ty, but m odi fi cat i o n a l s o c o u l d t a k e p l a c e wi th o u t s u b mi s s i o n o f‘ n e w’ evi dence. ” Ol d Be n C o a l C o . v . D i r . , OW CP ( H illia rd ) , 29 2 F. 3d 533, 54 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02 ) ( i nter nal ci tat i ons om i tt e d ). O ’Keef

fedi d, ho wev er, dr aw o n l eg i sl at i ve hi story to r equi r e th at m o di fi ca ti o n “ r en derj us ti ce unde r the act, ” 4 04 U
. S. at25 5, 25 6; that p rin ci ple co nti nues to i nf o r m th e di sc r et i o na r y det er m i na ti o ns m ade by the ag en cyo n modi fi ca ti o n. O ur ow n d ecisions h ave foll ow ed the Su p rem e C ou rt’s di r e c t i o n t o i nt e r pr e t the mod i fi c a t i o n pr o v i s i o n toN o. 10

- 2174 41

re ach br oadl y with re spect to b oth substa nce and pro ced ur e. I n H illia rd, we r e v i e we d the a g e nc y ’ s de ni al o f an em p loy er ’s m od i fica tio n p et itio n . In d en yin g m od ifi cati on, the A LJ had not ed that m od ifi cati on was di scr etio n ar y a n d su b j ec t a l w a y s to th e lim ita tio n th at it re nd erj usti ce under the A c t; speci fi cal l y, the age ncy bel i ev ed thatthe need to r ender j usti ce s houl d be “bal ance[ d] .

. . ag ai nst the nee d fo r fi nal i ty i n deci si on m ak i ng . ” 29 2 F
. 3d at 53 7 ( quo ta ti o n mar k s o m i tt ed)

. The age ncy’ s l anguage m ade c l earthati t was di spl eas ed w i th the e m plo yer ’ s t acti cs in the case befor e i t: “The m odi fi cati on pro vi si ons ofthe A ct a re not i nt en ded to a l l o w a pa r tyt o l ayb ac k, a nd, ha ving re c eiv ed an ad ve rs e d ec isi o n , t a ke a se c on d (or in th i s ca se , a thi r d) b i te a t th e appl e byg ea r i ngup and pr e s e nt i nge v i de nc e tha ti tc o ul d h a v e p r es e nt e d a tthe fi r s th e a r i ngo n the cla i m . T o do so w oul d al l ow the Em p loy er, under the gui se of an alleg at ion of m ist a k e, to ret ry its ca se sim p ly bec au se i t f ee l s th ati t ca n mak e a be tt ers ho wi ng th e n ex t t im e a ro u n d .” Id. a t5 3 7( qu o t i ngthe ALJo pi ni o n)
. We re ver s e d. Dra wi ngo n the S up r e me Co ur tp r e c e de nta nd a “w eal th o fci rcui t ca ses , ” id. a t 54 1, we f o cus ed o n the bre adth ofthe provi si on a nd the consci ou s deci si on o f C on gr es s t o e lev at e a c c u ra c y ov er fina lity em b od ied in th e m o di fi ca ti o n pro vi si o n. W e r ev i ewe d de ci si o ns that ove rturned m odi fi ed awards and concl ud ed that, althou gh the p referen ce for accu racy cou ld be overcom e ins o m e si tu at i o ns b y v ar i o us c o ns i der at i o ns a nd42 N o. 10

- 2174

Indeed, we w ent so f ar as to s ay that, “[ t] o the ext ent that 10 an ALJ det er m i ne s thatthe re ar e i m por t antr ea s ons g r o u n d e d i n th e l a n g u a g e a n d p o l i c y o fth e A c tth a to v e r c o me the prefe re nc e f or ac c ur ac y, thatdet er m i nat i on s houl d not be d is turbed.” H i l l i ard , 292 F. 3d at 547. s p e c i f i c i n t e r e s t s r e l a t e d t o fi n a l i t y c o u l d b e a mo n gth e m, th e “c o nc ern f o r fi na l i ty si m pl y ca nno t be g i ve n the sa m e w eig h t t h at i t w ou ld be giv en in a reg u lar civ il proce edi ng i n a federa l di str i ct c ourt
. ” Id. W e no ted th a tab us e o fthe a dj ud i c a t o r y s y s t e m was o ne p o t e nt i al basi s f orr efusi ng m odi fi cati on, and furtherco ncl ud ed that “an AL J would be enti tl ed to de te rm i ne thatan em p loy er w a s em p loy in g t h e re op en in g m ec h an ism in an unrea sonab l e e ff or t t o del ay paym ent. ” Id. at54 7. In fi ndi ngtha t th e AL J i n H i l l ia rd ha d f ai l ed to g r o und h e r d e c i s i o n i n th e p o l i c i e s o fth e s t a t u t e, h o we v e r, we l eft the dete rm i nati on of the “univ er se ofact i ons that o ve r co m es the pr efer en ce f o r a cc ur ac y ” wi th i n the sound disc re ti on o fthe age ncy, guid ed b y the “j usti ce und er the A ct s tandard. ” Id. ( i nter nal quotat i on m ar ks om itted ). W e sp ecifi cally ruled th at th is st an d ard

10 sh ou l d no t be c o nfus ed wi ththe mor e amor pho us a nd f ami l i ar“ i nt er es ts o fj us ti ce ” st an dar d; the r el ev an t sta nd ar d dir ectl y “ cabi ns the di scr eti on o fthe A LJ t o kee p i n m i nd the basi c dete rm i nati on o fCongr ess that ac cu r acy of

de t e r m i nat i on i s to begi ve n g r e atwe ightin a ll deter m i nati ons und erthe A ct. ” Id. ( em p ha sis add ed ). W e furthernot ed that the s tat ute pr ovi des a bro ad ti m el i ne f orr equesting m odi fi cation by speci fyi ng tha tN o. 10

- 2174 43 requ ests n eed only be fi led w ithin o n e ye ar of a claim ’s rej ec ti o n a nd i nc l udi ngno l i m i ta ti o n o n s ubs eque nt re que s t s . We c i t e d wi th a pp r o v a l c a s e s fr o m o the r circuits th at ha d conc lud ed that the “rejection of a c lai m ” l anguage i n § 9 22 i ncl ud es rej ecti on o fano ther m odi fi cati on peti ti on it sel f, ther eby l engthe ni ng substa nti al l y the am ount o fti m e in w hi ch a cl ai m co uld be p en d in g. Id. a t5 4 0

- 4 1 ( c i t i n gc a s e s fr o m th e T h i r d a nd Fou rth C ircuits).

II Ou r re vi ew ta sk i s wel l

- define d . O n peti ti on f or re vie w o f a d ec isio n of th e B en efit s R ev iew B oa rd in pr o c e e di ng s u nd er the Bl a c kLu ngBe ne fi t s Ac t, 3 0 U. S
. C. §§ 910- 45,
o urt as ki s to r ev i ew the ALJ ’ s dec i si o n whi chthe Board affi rm ed. W e do so und era defe re nti al stan d ard of re view : W e w il l not overtu rn th e A L J’ s deci si on i f it i s r ati onal, supporte d by s ubstanti al e v i d e n c e a n d c o n s i s t e n tw i th g o v e r n i n gl a w. We a ffi r m a n AL J ’ s f a c t u a l fi n d i n g s i f th e y a r e s up ported byr el ev an t ev i den ce tha t a r at i o na l min d m i g hta cc epta s adeq uate t o s uppo r t a dec i si o n. W e do no t r ewe i g h the e vi den ce , r es o l ve i nc o nsis te n c ies in t h e re c or d , m ak e c re d ibilit y d et er m inati ons, o r substi tute our i nfe re nces f ortho se draw n bel ow. Though w e d eferto the A LJ’ s f actual deter m i nati ons, we re vi ew questi ons of l aw deno vo .44 N o. 10

- 2174 R o b e r t s & S c h a e

f e r C o . v . Di r . , OW CP , 400 F. 3d 992, 99 6 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( i n t e r n a l qu o t a t i o n ma r k s a n d c i t at i o ns o m i tt ed)

. “ Aft erthi s ex ami na ti o n, we th enr ev i ew the B oard ’s dec isi on to d e term ine w he th er the B oard adher e d t o i t s s c o pe o fr e v i e w a nd wh e the r i tc o mm i tte d any l egal err or . ” Blakl ey v . Am ax Coal Co. , 54 F. 3d 1313 , 1318 ( 7th Cir. 1995). Fl or ence Crowe, widow o fH ar ol d C ro w e, chal l enges the deci si on o fthe A LJ, affi rm ed by the Benefi ts Revi ew Bo ar d, r ev er singa n a war d o fb en efits to M r . Cr o we. S he ra i ses thre e a rgum ents i n supp or t o fr em and to the a gency . Fi rs t, she conte nd s that the act i on s houl d have be en di smi ss ed when th e co alo per at o r was d i ss o l ve d a nd no othe r partyas sum ed re sponsibi l i ty f orthe m odi fi cati on pet i ti o n. S ec o nd, she claims tha t th e AL J e r r ed i n c o ncl udi ngtha t m o di fi ca ti o n wo ul d s er ve justi ce unde r the Act. F i na l l y, s he c l ai m s that ane ar l i erde ci si o n o fthe Benefi ts Revi ew Boar d err oneo u sly re m anded the case backto the A L J a n d that we shoul d rev i ew and re ver se t hate ar l i erde ci si o n. M y c o l l ea g ue s pr emi se the i r g r an t ofthe pe tit ion on M rs . Cro w e’ s fi rs t r eas on. Because I find n o m er it i n th at arg u m en t, I sh all d isc u ss as w ell her al ter nate ar gum ents.

A . Requ est s f orD i sm i ssal As the c o ur t r ec o unt s, M r . Cr o we r eque sted tha t th e m odi fi cati on peti ti on p ending i n hi s ca se be di sm i sse d w h en H or izo n N at u ra l R es ou rc es , th e s u c c es so r in i nter estto Zei gl er, M r. C row e’ s f or m erem plo yer, wasN o. 10

- 2174 45

A t ora l arg u m en t, it be cam e ap p are nt th at T rav elers is 11 con testing its sta t u s a s the su rety in oth er litiga tion
. F or ease of reading, I conti nue to refer to it as the surety holder, as i t has not b ee n d et er m ined to be otherw is e s o f ar as w e have been m ade aw are. diss ol ved i n bankr up tcy. I nd eed, he m ove d to dism i ss w hen no par ty had i nter vened i n 200 5, and hi s m oti on was de ni ed bythe Bo ar d. La ter, when Tr av el er s, the hol der o fa sure ty f ro m Zei gl er, m ove d to i ntervene, M r. Crowe opposed the m oti on and has conti nue d h is obj ecti on thro ughout the pro ceedi ngs. M rs . Cro w e no w 11 conte nd s that i t was er ro r f orthe A LJ a nd the Board t o re fu se d ism iss al of t h e m od ifica tio n p et itio n w h en it ha d no na m ed prop one nt and to al low Trav elers’s int erve nt i o n i n 2 00 9. Ic o ns i dertho se a r g um en ts i n tur n. At the o ut se t, i t sh o ul d b e no te d tha t, i n the di ssol uti on pro ceedi ng, the bankr up tcy court enter ed an o rder re l evantt o the pre sent m att er . That co urt dir ecte d that al l pending bl ack l ung clai m s agai nst debt or s ( i
. e. , f or m er coal ope rators w hos e interests had pa ssed to H orizon) shal l notbe dism i sse d but i ns tea d, al l owed to p ro c ee d to fina l ad j u d ica tio n w ith th e a p p lica b le d e b t o r s a s p a r t i e s . F i n a l l y a d j u d i c a t e d c l a i ms that re sul t in benefi t a w ar ds w i l l notbe enf or ced ag ains t th e Deb to r s butr athe r wi l l f o r m the b as is for c olle c tio n fro m an y oth e r res p on sib le par ti es the r efo r e, i nc l udi ngwi th o utl i m i ta ti o n, the D ebtors [’ ] su reties u nd er the [black lun g statu te].46 N o. 10

- 2174 Ol d B e n C o a l C o . v . Di r . , OW CP , 47 6 F
. 3d 418, 41 9 ( 7th Cir
. 2 0 0 7 ) ( i nv o l v i ngthe Ho r i z o n b a nk r up t c y ) ( mod i fi catio n s in orig in al) (q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ).

1 . D i smi s s a l a tt he Ag e nc ywa s no tRe qui r e d b y ou r P reced en ts The pa ne l maj o r i t y ’ s de c i s i o n f a ul t i ng the a g e nc y f or f ai l i ng to di sm iss t h e acti on r est s o n two pri orcas es of th is court, whi chIb el i ev e m er i t det ai l ed ex ami na ti o n. F i r st, i n Ol d B e n C o a l C o . v . D i r e c t o r, O WC P ( M el vin ), 476 F. 3d 418 (7th Cir

. 20 07) , a m i ner had been a w ar ded benefi ts i n a fi nal o rd ero fthe Board. A bank ruptcy then r es ul te d in th e di ss o l ut i o n o fthe e m pl o y er, b utthe i nsurer, wh o coul d c on ti nue to f ace l i abi l i ty, so ught t o chal l enge the a gencydeci si on without be c om ing a party to i t. A t the i nsurer ’ s b eh est, a peti ti on f orr evi ew was fi l ed i n th i s co urt, but i n the nam e o fthe then- diss ol ved empl o y er . W e di smi ss ed th e ac ti o n. Bec au se ne i th er the i ns ur erno r a ny o ne e l se ha d “ so ug htpa r tys ta tu s, ” th e o nl y en ti ty se ek i ng to i nv o k e o ur j ur i sdi ct i o n wa s “the gh os t o f” t h e d iss olv ed em p loy er . Id. at 420 . A non- party ( i ncl ud i ng the sur etybo nd h older ) se eking to pro tect some c o nt i ng e nti nt e r e s tc o ul d n o t“ di r e c t [ ] i t s l a wyer to r epr es en t a na m ed par tytha t [ byv i r tu e of its di ss o l utio n ] w as nota re alparty in i nter est
. ” Id. W e i ss ue d o ur dec i si o n i n M el vin , whi ch, a s no te d abo ve , i nv o l ve d the sam e ba nkruptcy, i n J anuary20 07. Therea fter, i n J une 200 7, w e i ssued ano therdeci si on i n Ze ig l e rC o a l C o . v . Di r e c t o r, OW CP ( G riskel l ) , 4 90 F. 3dN o. 10

- 2174 47 609 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07) , thatal so i nvol ved the sam e ba nkr upt cya nd s ame s ur ety . W e no te d i n G riskel l th a t, in Fe b ru ar y 2 00 7, T ra ve ler s h ad m ov ed to int er ve n e w h ile th atc as e was pe nd in gi n o urc o ur t. W e al l o wed the i nt er ve nt i o n, a l th o ug h we co ns i der ed i t unt i m el y, no ting that Trave l er s “ showed go od cause to i nter vene because , unt i l o urde ci si o n i n [ M elvin ] , [ Trave l er s] had no r eas on to bel i eve thati nter venti on w as necess ar y t o prot ect [ i ts] i nter est
. ” Id. at61 0 n. 1. Both M el vin a nd G riskel l w ere issued after M r. Crow e’s m ot ion to d ism iss be for e t h e a ge n c y a n d n eit h er is sq u ar ely on p oin t b ec a u s e t h e is su e o f p ar ty st at u s im p licate d A rt i cl e I I Ij uri sdic ti onalco ncer ns be f or e thi s co urt, not the r i gh t to pro ceed be f or e the ag ency. N eve rthel ess , th eya r e i ns tr uct i ve . W e per m i tted unt i m el y i nt er ve nti o n i n G riskel l i n pa rt bec ause w e had co ncl ud ed that th e i n s u re r, rely in g on th e b an kr u p tc y c ou rt ’s o rd er , had no reaso n to believe i n terven tio n w a s necessa ry . Ourr ul i ng su gg es ts th at, at le as t u n til M e l vin was i ssued, an insurer i nv o l ve d i n thi s par ti cul arb an k r upt cya nd un d er the b an kr u p tc y c ou rt ’s o rd er w ou ld h av e b ee n rea so n ab le in i ts b el i eftha t i t co ul d l i ti g at e i n the nam e o fthe d issolved em p loyer. The panel m aj or i ty’ s o pini on not es that G riskel l di d not “am pli f [ y] o r enl ar ge[ ] up on” w hat i t i denti fi es as M el vin ’ s ba si c hol din g, that a di sso l ved enti ty “w as not a re alpa r tyi n i nt er es t to a pr o ce edingunde r the [B lac k L u n g B en efit s A c t].” M aj. O p . at 1 6. O u r h old in g in M el vin , howev er, was prem i sed expl i ci tl y o n the f act tha tthe e nt i t y s e e k i ngt o i nv o ke th e jur is dict ion of this48 N o. 10

- 2174

co urtw as a n on -ex ist en t c or p or at ion . I t w as n o t t h at O ld B en c ea sed to be a r ealparty t o a p r o c e e d i n g u n d e rt he A ct

— i t had ce ase d to exi st at all ; a s su ch, i t ha d no th i ng to l o se o r g ain fr o m the s ui t an d l acke d st an di ngi n o ur co ur t. Al th o ug h our de ci si o n i n M el vin no te d tha t th e sure ty w as enti tl ed to i nter vene i n the adm i ni str ati ve proce edi ng, we did not sta te t hat i t would have bee n re quir ed to do s o; i nd eed, we al so ackno w l edged that i t m i ght ha ve i nter vened i n ourco urt to prot ect i ts cl ai m ed i nter est s. G ri skel l ’ s si g ni fi ca nc e i s th ati t ex pli ci tl y s tat es that the f ai l ure to have i nter ve n ed as a partyi n i nter est pr i orto 20 07 is n otfat al. W he n Mr. Cr o we’ s own ca se i s pl ac ed ag ains t th e ti m el i ne o four pr ec ede nt s, the r ea so nabl en es s o fthe ag en cy ’ s d e c i s i o n n o tt o d i s mi s s th e a c t i o n p r i o r t o the f or m ali nter venti on o fT ravel er s i s a pp ar ent. A l though M r. C ro w e s ought dism i ssa l befor e the A LJ a nd r epeatedl y obj ected bef or e the Boar d to parti ci pati on o f counselo n behal fo fthe diss ol ved e m p loyer, he di d so bef or e M el vin a nd G riskel l rej ecte d th e resp ective in s urer s’ c o ur se i n thi s co ur t. A t t he t i m e bo th M el vin and G riskel l we r e de c i de d, the Bo a r d ha d i s s ue d i ts or der a ffi rm i n g th e AL J ’ s e vi denti ar y c oncl usi on that M r. Cro w e had notdem onst ra ted an e nti tl em ent t o benefi ts . H owever, the Board had r em anded the case so that the AL J co uld dete rm i ne wh etherm odi fi cati on s er ved j us ti ce un d er the Act
. The o ppo singpa r ty, s ti l l l i ti g at i ng i n the na m e o fthe b an k r upte m pl o y erpu rsua ntt o the ba nk r upt cyc o ur t’ s o r der, so ug htr eh ea r i nge n b an c. The Board di d not deny that m oti on unti l A ugust 2 007, sh ortly after G riskel l was deci ded

. The r em and or derN o. 10

- 2174 49

The pan el m aj or i t y opi ni on notes thatthe s ur ety i n G ris k ell 12 sought t o in te rv en e j ust w eeks after M e l vi n was i s s ued, an d T r a v e l e r s fi r s tmo t i o n i n th i s c a s e w a s a y e a r af t e r t h e s a me dec i s i on . But the c a s e s we r e a t ve r y di ff e r e nt s t a ge s ofl it igati on at that tim e. G ris k ell w as alre ad y on p etition f or rev iew in ou r c ourt, a nd M elv in woul d have r equi re d dis m i s s al abs en t int erventi on, as a m a tt er ofj uris dicti on. In the pres ent cas e, as we al re ady h av e d i s c us s ed, the m at t er was s i t t i ng a wai t i ng a de c i s i ono n a m ot i onf orr e he a r i ng be f or e the Bo a r d. then pl aced the cas e ba ck bef or e th e A LJ. A t that poi nt, i n ear l y 2 008, Tra vel er s, the sure ty hol der, filed i ts fi rs t m oti on t o i nter vene ove r M r. Cro w e’s re new ed ob j ec tio n ; alt h ou gh th at m ot ion w a s d en ied , seeOrder

12 ofA LJ a t 2 n. 5 (J an. 30 , 20 09) , the Board f ound that denial to h av e be en in e r r or , seeOrder ofBRB at1- 2 ( Oct. 21 , 2009 ) , and perm i tte d i nter venti on i n 200 9. I n shor t, Tra vel er s was n ot engag ed i n i m proper conduct w hen i t wai ted fro m the ti m e o ft he H or i zon ba nk r upt cyunt i l 2009 to be co m e a par tyt o the c as e. The c ou rs e t h at th e e m p loy er ’s c ou n se l c h o s e w as in conf or m i ty w i th ex isti ng l aw and a c ourto rderpri orto M el vin a nd G riskel l

. Whe n, i n 2 0 0 7, tho s e c a s e s ma de clea r th at the a pp ro pri ate way ofpro ceedi ng was not to con tinu e the proc eed ings in th e n a m e of th e em p loyer, but byf orm al substi tuti on o fthe sure ty, Tra vel er s t oo k i ts fi r sto ppo r tu ni tyt o s ee ki nt er ve ntio n upo n r emand o fthe c as e. The pr o ce eding s co nt i nue d e ss ent i al l y uninte rr up ted by the i ssue of w ho actual l y l i ti gat ed the m od ifi cati on peti ti on. The r el evantquesti on in th e m odi fi cati on has al w ays bee n substa nti ve enti tlem ent t o benefi ts base d on m edi calev i dence.50 N o. 10

- 2174

The p anel m aj ority supp orts i ts d eci si on on an inte rpreta- 13 ti on of the st atute and reg u lati ons that i t bel ie ves r equire d di s m i s s al ev en withoutour gui danc e i n M elv in a nd G ris k ell

. Spe c i fi c al l y, the m aj or i t y t ake s the p os i t i on t hatthe s t atut e and re gul at i ons r equi re the re t o be a par t y inint er es tan d dir ec tthe ALJ t o di s m i s s a c as e when i tha s be ena b an done d by the prop onent. T he provisi ons the m aj ority identi fie s, how ever, are notapp li cable to the situation at han d. T he s tatute r equire s t h a t “th e ap p lication ” for m od ifi catio n b e m ad e b y a p arty in i nt e r e s t, 3 3 U. S
. C. § 9 2 2, a nd i twa s s o m a de i n thi s c a s e , by Z eig ler, prio r to its d issolu tion
. A ltho u g h, as the p an el m ajor ity not es , c l ai m s m ay be deni ed due t o a bandon m en tunde r the regulat ions , the aband onm ent regulat ion cross

- referenc es a n o th er sec ti on, detai li ng the r eas ons f or w hich such a denial would be appr opr i at e; th atc ro s s - re f er en c ed s ec t i on m en t i ons on ly a ction s by a c l a i manttha tr es ulti n a ba nd on m e nt, n otby a n o p p o n e n t o f a c la im
. S ee20 C. F. R. § 72 5. 31 0( c ) ( re f er en c i ng § 72 5 .40 9 ). Insu m , th e le ga l au th or itie s d id n o t r e q u ire d ism iss al, and the adm i ni str ati ve re cor d si m plydoes notesta bl i sh the k i nd o fm i sco nd uct o r abandonm ent that would have re q u ire d th e A L J to d ism iss th e c a s e in th e re as on ab le ex er ci se o fhi s di sc r et i o n. 13

2. T h e A ge n c y A c ted w i t h i n its D is c retio n in P erm i t t i ng I ntervent i on A fter r ej ecting Tra vel er s’ s a rgum ent that the ti m i ng o f i ts i nt e r v e nt i o n wa s r e a s o nab l e i n l i g hto fthe de v e l o pm ent o fthe l aw o fo u r c i rcui t, the panel m aj or i ty note s that Trave l ers’s “behav i or, tho ugh not com m endabl e,N o. 10

- 2174 51

m ay be l egi ti m ate , pro vi ded thatthe d ela y . . . di d not p r ej u d i c e Mr
. a n d Mr s . C r o we . ” Maj
. O p . a t 1 8
. As t he p an el m ajorit y n o t e s , th er e is n o s p ec ific re q u ire m en t in the s tatute o r the r egul ati ons re q uir i ng i nter venti on t o o c c u r w ith in a sp ec ific t im e fra m e, bu t t h e c ou rtw ill “suppose that the r egul ati ons conte m pla te th at an i nsurer. . . wil l se ek i nter venti on i n a t i m el y m anner. ” Id. at 15. I n deter m i ni ng wh etheri nter venti on shoul d be perm i tte d i n thi s ca se, the panel m aj or i ty ci tes autho ri ti es, not spe ci fi c to the a g en cyc o nt ex t, de sc r ibi ngthe f ac tor s that cour ts shoul d consi der in deter m i ni ng w h ether t o perm i t a del aye d i nter venti on. A fternot i n g th at chi ef amongtho se f actor s i s th e pr ej udi ce s uff er ed bythe oppone n t, th e panelm aj or i ty concl ud es that ther e was su bs ta nt i alpr ej udi ce t o the Cr o wes i n thi s ca se a nd re ver ses . Respectfull y, Icannotag re e. Giv en the subst anti al disc re ti on the ag ency enj oy s in the conduct ofpro ceedi ngs u n d er th e A c t, it is n otou r ro le t o e n ga ge in e s se n tia lly de n o v o r e v i e w o fthe i nt e r v enti o n qu e s t i o n. No r do I be liev e t h at “ ‘ a l l o f th e c irc u m st an c es of th e c as e,’ ” M aj
. Op. a t 18 ( ci ting7 C Cha r l es Al anW r i g ht, ArthurR. M i l l er& M ar y Kay Kane, Fe deralPra c tic e and Pro

cedure § 1 916 ( 3d ed . 1 99 8 & S up p. 20 10) ) , dem onst ra te that the i nter venti on shoul d hav e been den ied . Although th e Crow es wer e r equi r ed to c o nt i nue pa r ti ci pat i ng i n the pr o ce eding s o ve r a pe rio d o fs ev er aly ea r s, the m aj or i ty i denti fi es no s peci fi c prej ud i ce t o thei r case . F i r st, the maj o r ity a ckno wl edg es tha t br i efi ngc o ntin u ed w ith co u n se l for th e s u re ty p ar tic ip at in g, alb eit in th e na m e o f th e e m p loy er . See Maj
. Op
. a t1 9 n . 5
. S e c o nd ,52 N o. 10

- 2174 the r eco rd i n thi s ca se w as com ple te by the t i m e that H o r i zo n was di ss o l ve d; th e AL J di d no t per m i t th e i ntr o duct i o n o f addi ti o na l e vi den ce , b uta dj udi ca te d the peti ti on with the e vi dence or i gi nal l y s ubm i tte d by Z eig ler

. See D eci si on and O rderof A LJ at 4

- 5 (J uly1, 20 05) (dec lin ing to reope n th e record f or ad d iti ona l evid en ce). Finally, in th e p eriod of tim e a ft er M el vin a nd G riskel l demons tr at ed th at i nt er ve nt i o n was a ppr o pr i at e, the c a s e w as essen tiall y stagn an t before th e agen cy for a peri od of seve ra l m onths, await i ng a deci si on o n al re ady fi l ed m oti ons. O n c e th e fi nal r em and or der was is s u e d , Tr av ele rs m ov ed to int er ve n e w ith in a re as on ab le ti m e fra m e, and, ag ai n, the Crowes suffer ed no di re ct p r ej u d i c e i n th e i n t e r i m. The Bo a r d a c t e d wi thin the b o un ds o fi t s di s c r e t i on when i t pe r m i tt ed Tr av el er s to i nt er ve ne . Nothi ngi n the sta tu te orcas e l aw r equi re d a di ff er ent r esul t. I t was u n d er st an d ab le for th e i n s u re r to be liev e t h at it co u ld pr o ce ed i n the f o r m ere m pl o y er ’ s na m e unt i l o ur dec i si o ns i n M el vin a nd G riskel l

. F ur th er, g i ve n tha t no s p e c ific p rej u d ice res u lte d for t h e C ro w es , i t w as w ith in th e di sc r et i o n o fthe ALJ t o a l l o w the c as e to c o nt i nue u n d er th e e m p loy er ’s n am e a n d w as fu rt h er w ith in the di scr eti on o fthe Bo ar d t o perm i t the i nter venti on i n 200 9.

B. J usti ce Un der t he A ct M r s. Cr o we ne xtc o nt en ds th atthe ALJ e r r ed i n c o ncl u d i n g th a t mo d i fi c a t i o n wo u l d s e r v e j u s t i c e u n d e r t he A ct. S peci fi cal l y, she aver s th at the em plo yerbehav edN o. 10

- 2174 53

Specific all y, in a procedu ral order i ss ued i n 1994 and another 14 in 2001, the AL J denied t h e em ployer’ s reques ts to int rodu ce evide n ce . I n both d enial s, the AL J noted thatthe em ployer previou sl y had had am ple t im e t o subm itevidence, but had f ai l ed t o do s o. i m proper l y in re fusi ng to p ay benefi ts und erthe fi nal a wa r d. F ur the r, s he c o nt e nd s tha t the ALJ ’ s de c i s i o n w as capri ci ous b ecause the A L J al re ady had concl ud ed, at ear l i erst age s i n the proce edi n g, that the e m plo yerhad f ai l ed to actwith di l i gence . 14 A s we have note d, the s tatute vest s a n A LJ with br oad disc re ti on i n m odi fi cati on p ro c eedi ngs. That di scr eti on i s cabi ned by the r equi re m ent that m odi fica tio n m ust ser ve j usti ce und er the A c t. O ’Keef fe, 40 4 U.S
. at25 5, 25 6. As we al so ha ve no te d, tha t pr i nc i pl e i s t ied to the A ct’ s pre f er en ce foracc uracyabo ve fi nal i ty i n m ost ci rcum sta nces. A l though a n A LJ i s e nt i t led , i n v ar i o us c irc u m st an c es , t o c on c lu d e t h at a p ar ty ’s c on d u c t is su c h th at a m od ifica tio n in it s fa vo r is im p ro p er , see H illia rd, 2 92 F
. 3d at5 47, M rs . Cr o we ha s no t i nv i te d o ur att enti on t o any c ase i n w hi ch w e hav e req u ire d such a co nc l us i o n. It is im p or ta n t t o re m em b er th e p os tu re atw h i c h th is questi on a ri ses i n this case

. The A LJ in the m odi fi cati on p ro c ee d in gs h ad co n c lu d ed th at, on t h e m er its an d in con side ration of al l th e evide nc e before him , M r. Cr o w e’s c l a i m t o b l a c k l u n g b e n e fi t s s h o u l d f a i l

. Mr
. C r o we , a nd no w M rs. C ro we, s ee kt o e m pl o y the j us ti ce unde r the A ct sta nd ar d t o conte nd that, despit e th at fi nd i ng,54 N o. 10

- 2174

Althoughwe no t ed i n H i l l i ard tha ta n e m pl oye r ’ s a t t e m pt 15 t o abu se the ad jud icato ry p ro cess to de lay p ay m en t w o u ld j us t i fy de ni al ofm odi fica t i on, 29 2 F
. 3d a t54 7, the re i s no all egati on that thi s w as the em ployer’ s course i n thi s cas e. M od ifica tio n w as not s oug ht f or delay

— itw as sought f or a re d et er m in a tio n o f th e m er its w ith ad d iti o n a l e v id en ce . M rs . Cro w e s houl d conti nue to r ecei ve benefi ts because of th e co nd uct o fthe em plo yer . Cert ai nl y, the proceedi ngs in thi s ca se ar e protract ed and the m att er m i g htwel l ha ve b ee n r es o l ve d m uchs o o ne r ha d the em p loy erbet terdefended the cas e a t the o utset
. M or eo ve r, ther e appe ar s to b e no s i g ni fi ca ntdi spu te tha t th e sure ty’ s f ai l ure to pay be nefi ts w h ile the m odi fi cati on p ro c ee d in g c on tin u ed w as in v iola tio n of law

. See 20 C .F.R . § 72 5.5 02 (a)( 1). N ev er th e l es s, th e A L J w as in 15 the b estposi tion to deter m i ne wh etherm odi fi cati on ser ved j usti ce under the Act. W e a l re ad y h av e sai d that, “[t]o th e ext en t tha t an A L J d eterm ines th a t there are i m port ant r eas ons gr ounded i n the l anguage and pol i cy ofthe A c t that o ver com e the pre f er ence f oracc uracy, th at deter m i nati on s houl d not be di sturbed. ” H illia rd , 2 9 2 F
. 3 d a t5 4 7
. T he s a me i s t r ue wh e n the ALJ fi nd s th atthe prefer en ce f o r a cc ur ac y o ut wei g hs c o m pet i ng consi derat i ons i n a g i ven ca se. H er e, the ALJ pr o per l y c o ns i der ed M r s. Cr o we’ s ar g um ents that j usti ce under the Act w oul d not be se rv ed bydenialo fa modi fi ca ti o n tha t he a l r ea dy ha d c o nc lu d e d w as w ar ra n te d by th e e vid en c e. H e a c kn ow led ged the unl awful ne ss o fthe e m pl o y er ’ s co nduc t, b ut f o u n d i td i d n o two r ka mani f e s ti nj u s t i c e t o Mr
. C r o weN o. 10

- 2174 55

O n the m att er ofnonp aym ent, the AL J w rote : 16 I do n otbe l i eve thatthe e m pl oye r’ s d el ay i n the paym en tofb en efi t s to t he cl ai m antis a s i gni fi c ante nough factor to justify d en y ing e m p loy er’s req u est f or m od ifi

c at i on. It does no te s t abl i s h thatm odi fyi ng the p rev iou s aw ard of be ne fit s w o u ld b e a “m an ifest inj usti ce, ” especi all y consi dering the “st atutory preference f or acc uracy ofbenefit s determ inat ion. ” O l d B en C oal C o. v. D i re ct or, O W C P [Hi l l i ar d], 292 F. 3d 533, [ 546] ( 7th Cir

. 2002)
. In this regard, I n o te t hat I agree that the em ployer’ s new ly developed m edical evidence unques t i ona bl y de m ons t ra t es thatI m ade m i s t ake s of f ac ti n fi ndi ng th e evi denc e was s uffi c i en tt o pr ove the m i ne r h a s pn e umoc on i os i s a nd i s t ot a l l y di sable d b y th e d ise a se . De cisionan d Order ofALJ at6 ( J an. 30 , 20 09 ) ( par al l el c i t at i on o m itt ed ). O n the m att er ofdili gence, the AL J c o nd ucted a brie frevi ew 17 of the par t i es ’ l i t i gat i on s t ra t eg i es thr ougho utthe dec adeslong proceeding. In the AL J ’ s view , the e m p lo yer had b een j us t i fi ed i n f ai l i ng t o putf or ward a vi gor ous defen se i n the fi rs ti ns t anc e, be c aus e the cl ai m ant ’ s evi denc e i n th e i ni t i al pr oc ee di ng was “wea k, ” and the age nc y’ s appr oval ofthats t ra t eg y was e vi de nti n the c l a im’ s de ni a l

. De c i s i ona nd Or de r o fALJ at4 ( J an. 30 , 20 09 )
. Af t er the c as e was r em ande d by the Seventh Circ uit f or re consi derati on of “the m edical evidence (co n tin u ed ...) be ca us e hi s be ne fi ts wer e pai d b y the Tr us t F und dur i ng th e l i ti g at i o n. The ALJ c o ns i der ed th e di l i g en ce o fthe 16 empl o y era nd the qua li ty o fe vi den ce pr o duce d i n the m odi fi cati on pro ceedi ng. H i s op i ni on m ake s cl earthat, 1756 N o. 10

- 2174

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 17 und er a dif f erents ta n d ard of proof, ” i d. at 4- 5, the AL J noted thatthe e m pl oye r s oughtt o i nt ro duce fur the r evi denc e; the A L J furt h er n ote d tha t he h ad d en ied tha t requ est, “d esp ite the dili gence ofem ployer’ s cou nsel to convince [ him ] other

w is e. ” Id. a t 5. Fi nal l y, the ALJ c re di t ed the e m pl oye r f or s ee ki ng m odi fi c at i on ra the r thanappe al i ng the awar d of benef it s: “I find thi s to b e a dil igentdecis ion, because an ap p e a l ma y h a v e p r o v e d fu t i l e t o th e e mpl o y e r b a s e d o n the exis ti ng evidentiary r ecord. ” Id. Wi th i n th e mo di fi c a t i on pr o cee ding, the AL J f ound thatthe new ly developed rec ord w as “replete w ith evidence developed by the em ployer re

gard ing the s tat e ofthe cl aim ant’ s m edical conditi on. ” Id. c on sid er ed in w h ole , t h e e m p loy er ’s c on d u c t in p u rs u in g m od ifica tio n w as n otsu fficie n tly p ro b lem at ic that i t s houl d up setthe “st atuto rypre f er ence f oracc uracy o fb e ne fi t s de t e r mi na t i o n. ” De c i s i o n a nd Or de r o fALJ at 6 (J an . 30, 2009 ) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). I n s um , i t w as wi th i n the di sc r et i o n o fthe ALJ t o c o nc l ud e that the i nter est i n accura cy, w hi ch occupi es a unique pl ace i n bl ack l ung lit iga tio n, sho uld notbe outw eighed by t he em p loyer’ s

— or the insu rer’s

— conduct i n thi s l i ti g at i o n.
C. Revi ew ofEar l i erBoa r d D eci si on Finally, M rs. C row e a sks u s to review the B oard ’s deci si on o fA ugust 2 4, 20 04, i n w hi ch i t r em anded an AL J ’ s pr ev i o us a w ard o fb en efi ts , c o nc l udi ngtha t th e A L J m ad e an error of law

. I n th at d eci s io n , the Boa rdN o. 10

- 2174 57

M at t erof

X oni cs , Inc. , 813 F. 2d 127, 1 3 0 -3 1 ( 7th Cir

. 1987) 18 ( “A dv ers e deci si ons on i nter locut o ry m att ers m ay be saved up to be app eal ed at the end of the cas e. . . . W e have an app eal from the o nly ‘ final’ d ecision , an d in suc h a n a p p ea l all qu esti ons ar e open. ”) ; 15A C harles A

. W ri ght, Arthur R

. M il le r & E d w a rd H . C o o p er , F ed er a l P ra ct ic e & P ro ce d u re § 3 9 0 5 .1 ( “The p rohib iti on againsti m m ediate app eal ofm ostpretr ial an d t r i a l o rd ers estab lished b y the final ju d g m en t ru le is of f se t by the r u le that once app eal i s taken from a t ruly final j ud gm ent thatends the l it ig a ti on, earl ie r rul ings general ly c an b e r ev ie w ed .”). deter m i ned that the AL J had f ai l ed to pro vi de a m edi cal reaso n f o r c r edi tingthe t es ti m o ny o fthe s i ng l e tr ea ting p h y s i c i a n w h o d i a g n o s e d p n e umo c o n i o s i s o v e r th e e mp loye r ’s p hy sicians w ho, up on review ing M r. Crow e’s m ed ica l r ec or d s, d et er m in ed th at p n eu m oc on ios is c ou ld no t be di agno se d. The pa r ti es ha ve s ubmi tt ed va r i o us ar g u m en ts ab ou t t h e re vie w ab ility of th is d ec isio n, a re m an d ord e r t h at h as tw ice be en su c c ee d ed by ad d iti onalo rder s o fthe Board o n the m er i ts. A s we note d at oral ar gum ent, i t i s s el f

- evi dent that ou r j urisd iction ext en d s to qu estions ad d ressed i n inte rlocuto ryo rder s o fthe re l evantag ency orco urt. 18 Therefore, the di ffi cul tyf o r M r s. Cr o we o n thi s i ss ue i s n o t, a s T r a v e l e r s c o n t e n d s , th a t we c a n n o t r e a c h t he p riorBoa rd de cision bec a u s e it is not a final order. Rather, the diffi cul ty i s that the Boar d’s legal deter m i nat i o n di d n o tc o nt r o l the ALJ ’ s c o nc l us i o n o n r e man d. T he rem a n d sim p ly p rovide d the A L J an opp or-58 N o. 10

- 2174

T he com p lete reex am ina tio n o f the ev id en ce w as w ithin 19 th e sc o p e o f t h e r e m a n d o r d e r , w h i c hv a c a t e d th e A L J’s “a s s es s m en tofthe e vi denc e” an d “i ns t ru c t [ ed] hi m on rem an d to co nsid er th e em p loy er’s m od ifi catio n re qu est in ac c or danc e with the s t anda rd s etf or th in H i l l i ard

. ” Dec i s i on a n d Or de r o fB o a r d a t6 ( Au g . 2 4 , 200 4 )
. I n th e B o a r d’ s v i e w, H i l l i ard re q u ir ed th e ag en cy to “ g iv e g re a t w ei g h t to ac cu ra cy .” Id. at 5. t un i t y t o r e e xa mi ne the e v i de nc e . I n do i ngs o , the ALJ 19 c on c lu d ed that the pr i oraward w as er ro neous i n i ts d et er m in at ion th a t th e e vid en c e s u p p or te d a d iag n os is ofp ne umo c o ni o s i s . Al tho ugh no t i ngthe b a s i s f or th e Bo ar d’ s r emand, th e ALJ’ s f o cus was i ns te ad o n a c o mpr e he ns i v e r e e xa mi na t i o n o fthe r e c o r d. I n shor t, we need not deci de w heth er the Board m i sst at ed o urpr ec ede nt s when i t r em an d ed so tha t th e AL J c o ul d pr o vi de a m edi ca l r ea so n f o r pr efer rin gthe tr eat i ng physi ci an’ s di agno si s. A n y s uch er ro r w oul d be harm l ess i n the prese nt ca se because , in t he r em anded p ro c ee d in gs , th e A L J’s t ot al re ev alu a t i on of th e c laim led to th e con clusion that the r ecord did not su p p ort M r . Crowe. Tha t det er m i na ti o n was b as ed no t o n the Board’ s m edi calr eas on s tandard, bu t on a com ple te r e v i e w o fth e me d i c a l e v i d e n c e fr o m t o p t o b o t t o m. Con se que nt l y, Imustc onc l ude tha t th e AL J a nd th e Bo ar d a ct ed wi th i n the i r di sc r et i o n in de ny i ng M r . Cr o we’ s m o ti o n t o di smi ss and i n pe r m i tt i ng del ay ed i nt er ve nt i o n b y Tr av el er s. F ur th er, g i ve n the A ct’s stron g p r e fe r en ce for accu racy in ben efi ts d eter-N o. 10

- 2174 59

m inations , the A L J d id n ot abu se his d iscre t ion i n d eterm ining thatj us ti ce unde r the Actwas s er ve d b y the m o di fi ca ti o n. Fin al l y, a l th o ug h we m ayr ev i ew i nt er l o cutor y o rder s o fthe Board, any l ega l er ro r in its 20 04 r u l i n gp r o v e d in c o n s e q u e n t i a l ; th e A L J ’ s o p i n i o n c o mpl et el y r ee va luated the e vi den ce a nd made cl ea r tha t he believed the record did not s u p p ort M r. Crow e’s c laim s. A c c or d in gly , Iw ou ld d en y t h e p et itio n .

6- 1- 11