2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-28-2005 

# Hrob ak v . AB C C o al C o P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3185

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Hr o b ak v . AB C C o al C o " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 952. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/952NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 04- 3185 J OS E P H G. HR OB AK,

Pet i t i oner v. AB C C OAL CO M P ANY; L AC KAWANNA C AS UAL T Y C OM P ANY; DI RE CT OR , OF F I CE OF WORKE RS ’ CO M P E NS AT I ON P ROGRAM S , UNI TE D ST ATE S DEP ARTM ENT OF L ABOR, R e sp o n d e n ts

O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on and O r der o f th e B en ef

it s R ev iew B o ard ( D. C. No . 0 0 9 0 - 1 : 0 3 - 0 6 6 0 BL A) Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 3, 2005 B E FO R E : FU E N T E S, G R E E N B E R G and C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed J une 28, 2005) OP I NI ON2

C O W E N , C i r cui tJ udge. J os eph G . H r obak, a form erm i ner , pet i t i ons forr evi ew of the U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof LaborB enef i t s R evi ew B oar d’ s ( the “Boar d”) or deraff i r m i ng the A dm i ni s tr at i ve Law J udge’ s ( the “A L J ”) deci s i on t o denybenef i t s on hi s cl ai m fi l ed pur s uantt o t he fe der al bl ack l ung pr ogr am, fi r s tenac t ed as T i t l e I V of the Feder al C oal M i ne H eal th and Safe tyA ctof 1969, as amended, 30 U . S. C . § 901 et s eq. (t h e “ A c t” ). H r obak cont ends thatthe A L J err ed i n notaff or di ng hi s tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on c o n tr o l l i n g we i g h t . He f u r th e ra s s e r t s th a tth e AL J i mp r o p e r l ys u b s t i tu t e d h i s o wn m edi cal j udgm entforthatof H r obak’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci an and a notherphy s i ci an w ho s uppor t ed hi s cl ai m of pneumoconi os i s . W e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o s ect i on 21( c) of the Longshor e and H arborW or ker s ’ C om pens at i on A ct , 33 U . S. C . § 921( c) , as i ncorpor at ed bys ect i on 422( a) of the A ct , 30 U . S. C . § 932( a) . B eca us e w e conc l ude that the B oar d’ s or derw as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence and w as i n acc or dance w i th the l aw , w e w i l l denythe pet i t i on. A s w e w ri te s o le ly f

o r t h e p a rt ie s , w e o n ly p ro v id e a b ri e f re c ita tio n o f

th e f a c ts . H r obak fi r s ts aw C har l es J . A qui l i na, M . D . i n February1983. I n J ul y1998 w hen H r obak beca m e i l l he r emai ned underthe ca r e of D r . A qui l i na. T hr oughoutthe r emai nderof 1 9 9 8 an d 1 9 9 9 H rob ak co n su lt ed w ith D r. A q u il ina f o r va ri o u s m ed ical pro b lem s. In 1 9 9 9 a n d 2 0 0 0 , af

ter u n d e rg o in g n u m e ro u s te sts , H ro b a k w a s d iag n o se d w ith c h ro n ic obs truct i ve pul m onarydi s eas e ( “C O PD ”) and antr acos i l i cos i s . D r . G aca d, w hom H r obak3

cons ul t ed fora s econd opi ni on, agr eed thathe coul d have c oal w or kerr el at ed C O PD , but in d ic a te d th a t h e d o e s n o t h a v e c o a l w o rk e r p n e u e m o c o n io s is b a s e d o n h is c h e s t x -r a y . H obr ak then s aw D r . L evi ns on atthe r eques tof couns el , w ho opi ned thatH r obak does not suffer from pn euem oco niosi s. H rob ak fil ed claim s fo r be n ef it s u n d er the A ct i n 1 9 8 3 an d 1 9 8 6 , w h ich w ere deni ed. I n J une 1997, H r obak fi l ed the i ns t antcl ai m forbenef i t s w hi ch w as al s o deni ed aft erthe A L J concl uded thatpneumoconi os i s had notbeen e s t abl i s hed. A ft era hea r i ng b e f o re th e O f

f ice o f A d m in istra tiv e L a w Ju d g e s, h is c laim w a s a g a in d e n ied . O n a p p e a l, the B oar d part i al l yaff

i r m ed and pa r t i al l yr ever s ed the A L J ’ s deci s i on and r emanded t he m att erback f

ora det erm i nat i on of w hetherD r . A qui l i na qual i fi ed as H r obak’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci an and the w ei ghtt o be af for ded t o hi s opi ni on. O n r emand, the A L J found that al though D r . A qui l i na qual i fi ed as H r obak’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci an, the evi dence w as insu ff ici en t t o estab li sh the e x ist en ce o f p n eu m o co sn iosis. T h e B o ard af firm ed the A L J’s o rd e r d e n y in g b e n e f

its a n d th is a p p e a l e n s u e d . W e r evi ew the B oar d’ s deci s i on forconform ance w i th appl i cabl e l aw and a d h e re n c e to its s ta tu to ry sc o p e o f re v ie w . S e e N

e ls o n v . A m e r ic a n D r e d g in gC o ., 143 F. 3d 789, 792 ( 3d C i r . 1998) . W e r evi ew the fa ctual fi ndi ngs fors ubs t ant i al evi dence by c o n d u c tin g a n in d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e re c o rd . S e e id . a t 7 9 3 . S u b sta n tial e v id e n c e is

“ su c h re lev a n t ev id e n c e a s a re a so n a b le m in d m ig h t ac c e p t as a d e q u a te to su p p o rt a concl us i on. ” R i char ds on v. P er al es , 4 0 2 U .S . 3 8 9 , 4 0 1 (1 9 7 1 ).4

I n or dert o es t abl i s h el i gi bi l i tyforbenef i t s , a cl ai m antm us tes t abl i s h thathe su f f e rs f ro m p n e u m o c o n io sis , tha t ita ro se o u t o f c o a l m in e e m p lo ym e n t, an d th a t h e is to ta lly d is a b le d a s a re s u lt. See B eatt y v. D an riC orp. an d T

ri an gle En t ers. , 49 F. 3d 993, 9 9 7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). H e re , the B o a rd a f f irm e d th e A L J’s d e c isio n d e n y in g H ro b a k ’s c laim b e c a u s e h e f

a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h th a th e s u f f e r e d f r o m pn e u moc o n i o s i s . Al th o u g h th e ALJ found thatD r . A qui l i na w as H r obak’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci an, he ul t i m at el yconcl uded thatt he m e d ic a l o p in io n e v id e n c e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt h is d ia g n o s is o f p n e u e m o c o n io s is . Par t i cul ar l y , the A L J acc or ded gr eat erw ei ghtt o the opi ni on of D r . L evi ns on, w ho found n o p n eu m o co n iosis, b ec au se itw as m o re w ell rea so n ed an d b ett er d o cu m en ted. F u rth er, the A L J found thatas a boar d- cert i fi ed i nt erni s tand pul m onol ogi s t , D r . L evi ns on w as bett erqual i fi ed t o r enderan opi ni on than D r . A qui l i na, w ho w as a boar d- cert i fi ed a n e sth e sio lo g ist. O n a p p e a l, H ro b a k c o n ten d s th a t u n d e r th e tre a tin g p h y sic ian ru le, th e A L J is req u ir ed to g ive c o n tr o ll ing w eigh t t o the ju d g m en t of h is trea ti n g p h y sici an , D r. A q u il ina. R ec o g n izi n g the lim it ati o n o f th e ru le, H rob ak m aintains that D r. A q u il ina’s opi ni on w as s uppor t ed byhi s r ecor ds and di agnos t i c t es t i ng and w as noti m peac hed by su b sta n tial e v id e n c e . H e a ss e rts th a t th e A L J a v o id e d a p p lica tio n o f th e ru le b ym e re ly acc ept i ng the medi cal r ecor ds t o det erm i ne w hetherther e w as a doct or - pat i ent r e l a t i o n s h i p , r a th e rth a n f o rth e c o n t e n t s o f

th e r e c o r d s . Fi n a l l y , h e ma i n t a i n s th a tth e ALJ5

i m pr oper l ydi s cr edi t ed the opi ni on of D r . G aca d, w hi ch w as bas ed on obj ect i ve t es t i ng re s u lts . W e r ecogni ze thatunderthe A ct , the A L J i s r equi r ed t o gi ve “c ons i der at i on t o the re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e m in e r a n d a n ytre a tin g p h y sic ian w h o se re p o rt is a d m itt e d in to th e re c o rd .” 2 0 C .F .R . § 7 1 8 .1 0 4 (d ). F u rth e r, in “ a p p ro p ria te c a se s, th e re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n th e m in e r a n d h is tre a tin g p h y sic ian m a yc o n stitu te s u b sta n tial e v id e n c e in s uppor tof the [A L J ’ s ] deci s i on t o gi ve thatphy s i ci an’ s opi ni on contr ol l i ng w ei ght . ” 20 C . F. R . § 718. 104( d) ( 5) . H ow ever , the A ctal s o pr ovi des that“the w ei ghtgi ven t o the opi ni on of the mi ner ’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci an s hal l al s o be bas ed on the cr edi bi l i tyof the phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on i n l i ghtof i t s r eas oni ng and document at i on, otherr el evantevi dence a n d th e re c o rd a s a w h o le .” 2 0 C .F .R . § 7 1 8 .1 0 4 (d )( 5 ). T he A L J i n t hi s cas e appl i ed the corr ects t andar d forcons i der i ng the tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s opi ni on befor e ac cor di ng gr eat erw ei ghtt o the count ervai l i ng evi dence . A ft er exami ni ng the r ecor d, i ti s cl earthatthe A L J r e- w ei ghed the medi cal opi ni ons , as or der ed bythe B oar d. C ontr aryt o H r obak’ s as s ert i ons , the opi ni on of D r . A qui l i na w as c o n tra d icte d b ysu b sta n tial e v id e n c e in th e re c o rd . A s th e B o a rd e x p lain e d :

I n w ei ghi ng the medi cal opi ni ons , the [A L J ] acc or ded gr eat er w ei ghtt o t he opi ni on of D r . L evi ns on, w ho found no pneumoconi os i s , as he found i tt o be bett err eas oned and document ed than the opi ni on of D r . A qui l i na. T he [A L J ] pl ace d s ubs t ant i al w ei ghton D r . L evi ns on’ s opi ni on beca us e he r el i ed, i n part , on the r ever s i bi l i tyexhi bi t ed on cl ai m ant ’ s A ugus t24, 2000 pul m onaryfunct i on s tudyt o fi nd thatcl ai m antdi d nothave pneumoconi os i s . T he [A L J ] fur therfound s i gni fi cantthe fa ct6 that D r. A qu i l i na ag reed w i th D r. L evinson t hat this w as a cli n ical si g n co n tr ad ict ing the p rese n ce o f p n eu m o co n iosis. In ad d it ion , the [ A L J] ac co rde d g rea ter w eigh t t o the o p inion o f D r. L evi ns on beca us e as a boar d- cert i fi ed i nt erni s tand pul m onol ogi s t , he w as bett er - qual i fi ed than D r . A qui l i na, w ho w a s a b o a rd -c e rt if

ie d a n e s th e s io lo g is t. (A p p . at 6a . ) T he A L J w as perm i t t ed, and ac tual l yr equi r ed, t o cons i derthe tr eat i ng phy s i ci an’ s di agnos i s i n l i ghtof the r ecor d as a w hol e. T he ca s es ci t ed by H r obak ar e nott o t he contr ary . A s exampl e, i n Jones v. Sul l i van , this C o u rt had hel d that“i n l i ghtof [the] confl i ct i ng and i nt ernal l ycontr adi ct oryevi dence , the A L J corr ect l ydet erm i ned thatthe opi ni ons of J ones ’ s tr eat i ng phy s i ci ans w er e notcontr ol l i ng. ” 954 F. 2d 125, 129 ( 3d C i r . 1991) . B eca us e ther e w as su b stan ti al ev iden ce to su p p o rtthe A L J’s d ec isi o n to af fo rd less w eigh t t o D r. A q u ili n a ’s o p in io n th a n D r. L e v in so n ’s te stim o n y , w e w ill a f f irm o n th is gr ound. W e al s o di s agr ee w i th H r obak’ s al t ernat i ve ar gum entthatther e w as no l ogi cal r eas on fordi s cr edi t i ng D r . G aca d’ s opi ni on. T he A L J offe r ed an adequa t e r eas on fordi m i ni s hi ng the w ei ghtof D r . G aca d’ s t es t i m ony— he found thatthe “opi ni on w as uncl earand contr adi ct ory . ” ( A pp. at15a. ) T he A L J poi nt ed outthe i ncons i s t enci es i n the doct or ’ s ow n di agnos es . T he s t at ement s ar e contr adi ct ory , he expl ai ned, “i n thatpr i ort o hi s 2001 r eportthe m o st [ D r. G a c a d ] sa id w a s th e C laim a n t ‘c o u ld h a v e ’ C O P D th a t w a s re late d to7

h is co al m ine e m p loym en t ( i. e. pn eu m o co n iosis as d ef ined b ythe re g u lat ion s), w hi l e i n hi s 2001 r eporthe s ai d t hathi s di agnos i s ‘ w as s t i l l ’ pneumoconi os i s . ” ( A pp. at39a. ) A ccor di ngl y , D r . G aca d nevercl ear l ys t at ed thatH r obak has pneumoconi os i s . I n fac t , D r . G aca d opi ned i n M ay2000 thatH r obak “doe s nothave c oal w or kerpneumoconi os i s beca us e he doe s nothave the che s tx- r ay cr i t er i a thatw oul d fi tthi s di agnos i s . ” ( A pp. at183a. ) Fur ther , i n hi s 2001 reportD r. G acad recom m end ed an add i t i on al diagnost i c t estt o h el p est abli sh pneumoconi os i s i n l i ghtof a ne gat i ve X - r ay . ( A pp. at39a. ) W e agr ee w i th the B o ard that the A L J rea so n ab lyac co rde d d im inishe d w eigh t t o D r. G ac ad ’s o p in io n s b a s e d o n h is in h e re n tly in c o n s is te n t p o s itio n s . A c c o rd in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e B o a rd ’s o rd e r a f f irm in g th e d e n ial o f

b e n e f its w as s uppor t ed bys ubs t ant i al evi dence , i ncl udi ng the compet entopi ni on of an e xami ni ng p u l mo n o l o g i s t, a n d wa s i n a c c o r d a n c e wi th th e l a w. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , the pet i t i on forr evi ew w i l l be deni ed.