Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/484/135
Timestamp: 2016-08-27 04:08:11
Document Index: 295473318

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 203', '§ 203', '§ 727', '§ 203', '§ 923', '§ 902', '§ 410', '§ 410', '§ 410', '§ 410', '§ 727', '§ 727', '§ 410', '§ 727', '§ 727', '§ 13203', '§ 923', '§ 921', '§ 921', '§ 7']

MULLINS COAL COMPANY, INC. OF VIRGINIA, et al., Petitioners v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court aboutsearch liibulletin subscribe previews MULLINS COAL COMPANY, INC. OF VIRGINIA, et al., Petitioners v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al.
484 U.S. 135 (108 S.Ct. 427, 98 L.Ed.2d 450)
MULLINS COAL COMPANY, INC. OF VIRGINIA, et al., Petitioners v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al.
Decided: Dec. 14, 1987.
[HTML] See --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 787.
Syllabus Section 203(a) of the Secretary of Labor's "interim regulations" governing black lung benefits claims filed between July 1, 1973, and April 1, 1980, provides that a claimant who engaged in coal-mine employment for at least 10 years is entitled to an "interim presumption" of eligibility for disability benefits if he meets one of four medical requirements: (1) a chest X-ray "establishes" the presence of pneumoconiosis; (2) ventilatory studies establish the presence of any respiratory or pulmonary disease of a specified severity; (3) blood gas studies demonstrate an impairment in the transfer of oxygen from the lungs to the blood; or (4) other medical evidence, including the documented opinion of a physician exercising reasonable medical judgment, establishes a totally disabling respiratory impairment. Section 203(b) provides that "all relevant medical evidence shall be considered" in the adjudication of a claim, and that the interim presumption is rebutted if the evidence establishes: (1) that the claimant is doing his usual or comparable work; (2) that he is capable of doing such work; (3) that his disability did not arise, even in part, out of coal-mine employment; or (4) that he does not have pneumoconiosis. At the hearing on respondent Ray's 1976 claim, the record proved that Ray had 16 years of coal-mine employment and contained one qualifying and seven nonqualifying X-ray interpretations, two qualifying and four nonqualifying ventilatory studies, and one qualifying and five nonqualifying physicians' opinions. After weighing the evidence, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held that Ray was not entitled to the benefit of the interim presumption, and issued an order denying benefits, which the Benefits Review Board affirmed. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, rejecting the Secretary's position that § 203(a) requires the claimant to establish one of the qualifying facts by a preponderance of the evidence. The court held instead that a single item of qualifying evidence is always sufficient to invoke the interim presumption, and, upon finding that the presumption had been invoked in this case by the two qualifying ventilatory studies and the qualifying physician's opinion, remanded for the ALJ to determine whether the presumption had been rebutted by Ray's employer.
(c) The fact that a single item of qualifying evidence may often be sufficient to invoke the interim presumption does not compel the conclusion that such evidence must always be sufficient. The factual understanding underlying the presumption that it is highly probable that a long-term coal miner is totally disabled by pneumoconiosis arising from his employment if he can prove any of the regulation's medical requirementsis not present when the claimant merely offers a single item of qualifying evidence that is overcome by more reliable conflicting evidence. Similarly, the policy concern underlying the presumptionthat long-term miners who are truly diseased should not have to undertake the difficult task of proving that their diseases are totally disabling and coal-mine related, or that they are in fact pneumoconiosisis not implicated if a miner is not actually suffering from the type of ailment with which Congress was concerned. Thus, the Secretary's reading of the interim presumption's invocation burden is eminently reasonable and deserving of substantial deference. Pp. 156-160.
* Although some aspects of the black lung benefits program are rather complex, its broad outlines and relevant statutory provisions can be briefly described. Prolonged exposure to coal dust has subjected hundreds of thousands of coal miners to pneumoconiosisa serious and progressive pulmonary condition popularly known as "black lung." The tragic consequences of this crippling illness prompted Congress to authorize a special program for the benefit of its victims in 1969. Because that program has been developed through several statutory enactments,
different rules govern claims filed during different periods of time. Those filed prior to July 1, 1973, were processed by the Social Security Administration (SSA) pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW); when allowed, these "Part B" claims were paid from federal funds.
but the Court of Appeals did not hold that § 203 violates this standard. The statute also requires that "all relevant evidence" shall be considered, but it is clear that the regulation is consistent with that requirement
the only dispute is over how much of the relevant evidence may be considered in determining whether the interim presumption shall be invoked. Thus, there is no need to parse statutory language to decide this case.
Disability benefits are payable to a miner if (a) he or she is totally disabled, (b) the disability was caused, at least in part, by pneumoconiosis, and (c) the disability arose out of coal mine employment. All three of these conditions of eligibility are presumed if the claimant was engaged in coal mine employment for at least ten years and if the claimant meets one of four medical requirements:
(1) a chest X-ray establishes the presence of pneumoconiosis; (2) ventilatory studies establish the presence of a respiratory or pulmonary diseasenot necessarily pneumoconiosis of a specified severity; (3) blood gas studies demonstrate the presence of an impairment in the transfer of oxygen from the lungs to the blood; or (4) other medical evidence, including the documented opinion of a physician exercising reasonable medical judgment, establishes the presence of a totally disabling respiratory impairment.
It first provides that in the adjudication of a claim, "all relevant medical evidence shall be considered." It then provides that the presumption is rebutted if the evidence establishes that the claimant is doing or is capable of doing his usual or comparable work, that his disability did not arise, even in part, out of coal mine employment, or that he does not have pneumoconiosis. Thus, in order to rebut the interim presumption the employer has the burden of proving that at least one of the three conditions of eligibility is not satisfied.
X-ray interpretation, two qualifying ventilatory studies, and one qualifying physician's opinion. The record, however, also included seven nonqualifying X-ray interpretations, four nonqualifying ventilatory studies, and five nonqualifying physicians' opinions.
and afterbalancing all the ventilatory studies, he concluded that they did not establish the presence of a chronic respiratory or pulmonary disease.
He therefore held that Ray was not entitled to the benefit of the interim presumption.
The Secretary's regulations, however, recognize the difference between an X-ray that tends to prove the presence of pneumoconiosis and one that can be said to establish it. Thus, in contrast to the use of the word "establishes" throughout § 727.203(a), the regulation defining the suitable quality of X-ray evidence refers to an X-ray that "shall constitute evidence of the presence or absence of pneumoconiosis."
The Court of Appeals read § 203(a)(1) as though it merely required an X-ray that "constitutes evidence of the presence of pneumoconiosis." Had that been the Secretary's intent, presumably he would have used that language as he did elsewhere to explain that meaning.
There is another reason why § (a)(1) cannot have been intended to refer to a single item of evidence. For the ordinary trier of facteven an ALJ who has heard many black lung benefit casesan X-ray may well be meaningless unless it is interpreted by a qualified expert. What may be persuasive to the ALJ, then, is not just the X-ray itself, but its interpretation by a specialist. And, of course, different experts may provide different readings of the same X-ray. As Judge Posner has observed:
Thus, it seems perfectly clear that it is not the X-ray in isolation that "establishes" the presence of the disease; rather, the regulation must, at a minimum, have reference both to the X-ray itself and to other evidence that sheds light on the meaning and significance of the X-ray.
Just as the ALJ must weigh conflicting interpretations of the same X-ray in order to determine whether it tends to prove or disprove the existence of pneumoconiosis, there would seem to be no reason why he must ignore all X-rays in a series except one.
To assure that this problem would not infect adjudications under the new Labor interim presumption, the requirement of 30 U.S.C. 923(b) that all relevant medical evidence be considered in adjudicating SSA claims was explicitly carried over into the Labor presumption's rebuttal section. Thus, that the "all relevant medical evidence" requirement appears at the beginning of the rebuttal section reflects the genesis of the concern and does not indicate that the drafters intended a more limited evidentiary battle at the invocation stage. As long as relevant evidence will be considered at some point by the ALJ, the demand that the decision be made on the complete record is satisfied.
Again, we are constrained to disagree. Nothing in the regulation requires each rebuttal subsection to be fully available in each case. As long as the employer can introduce, say, nonqualifying X-rays at the invocation stage to oppose invocation under § (a)(1), it has been given the chance to show the nonexistence of pneumoconiosis. If the presumption is nonetheless invoked, the employer can still try to disprove total disability or causality.
Finally, there is some concern that the Secretary's position might permit a single negative X-ray interpretation to carry the day for the employer, in violation of the statute's mandate that "no claim for benefits . . . shall be denied solely on the basis of the results of an X-ray." § 923(b) (made applicable to Part C adjudications through § 902(f)(2)). The easy answer was provided by the dissent below: "a single negative X-ray may not . . . be drawn upon either as the sole basis for finding the invocation burden under (a)(1) not carried nor as the sole basis for finding the rebuttal burden under (b)(4) carried." 785 F.2d, at 445 (emphases added). Furthermore, in weighing conflicting X-ray readings ALJs will undoubtedly keep in mind the character of the black lung disease:
The SSA implemented this congressional desire to ease claimants' proof burdens by promulgating the interim presumption that serves as the antecedent to the one at issue in this case. The presumption, applicable to claims filed with the SSA before July 1, 1973, provides that a miner is presumed to be totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis if two conditions are met: First, either "a chest . . . X-ray . . . establishes the existence of pneumoconiosis" or "in the case of a miner employed for at least 15 years in underground or comparable coal mine employment, ventilatory studies establish the presence of a chronic respiratory or pulmonary disease. . . ." § 410.490(b)(1); second, "the impairment established in accordance with either of these medical requirements arose out of coal mine employment." § 410.490(b)(2). Additionally, "a miner who meets the ventilatory studies medical requirements . . . will be presumed to be totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mine employment . . . if he has at least 10 years of the requisite coal mine employment." § 410.490(b)(3).
The SSA's interim rules further provide that the presumption can be rebutted if either "there is evidence that the individual is, in fact, doing his usual coal mine work or comparable and gainful work" or "other evidence, including physical performance tests . . ., establishes that the individual is able to do his usual coal mine work or comparable and gainful work." § 410.490(c).
As the SSA's claims approval rate increased, Labor's remained low, in large part because of the absence of an interim presumption by which a claimant would only have to prove one predicate fact. The interim presumption at issue in this case, promulgated as a result of congressional dissatisfaction with Labor's low claims approval rate, is substantially similar to the SSA interim presumption. It satisfies Congress' demand that Labor's criteria "shall not be more restrictive than the criteria applicable to a claim filed on June 30, 1973," 30 U.S.C. 902(f)(2), i.e., no more restrictive than the SSA's interim presumption.
Thus, the legislative history of the Labor interim presumption does not establish that invocation must occur on a single piece of qualifying evidence.
Reasoning from that expectation, the Court of Appeals concluded that the presumption must be invoked whenever the record contains a single item of qualifying evidence. But as we have demonstrated above, that conclusion is compelled by neither the text nor the history of the regulation.
That degree of probability is not, however, present when the claimant is merely in a position to offer a single item of qualifying evidence that is overcome by more reliable conflicting evidence.
As a matter of policy, Congress was aware that it is difficult for coal miners whose health has been impaired by the insidious effects of their work environment to prove that their diseases are totally disabling and coal-mine related, or that those diseases are in fact pneumoconiosis. Rather than merely providing a benefit for those miners who could prove each of the relevant facts by a preponderance of the evidence, Congress intended that those long-term miners who can show that they are truly diseased should have to prove no more.
But if a miner is not actually suffering from the type of ailment with which Congress was concerned, there is no justification for presuming that that miner is entitled to benefits. For not only does that miner fall outside the class of those who need the assistance of an interim presumption, but he also is unlikely to be totally disabled from coal mine employment. By requiring miners to show that they suffer from the sort of medical impairment that initially gave rise to congressional concern, and then by requiring employers to shoulder the remainder of the proof burden, the Secretary's reading of the interim presumption's invocation burden satisfies both the purposes of the statute and the need for a logical connection between the proven fact and the presumed conclusion.
In the end, the Secretary's view is not only eminently reasonable but also is strongly supported by the fact that Labor wrote the regulation. The Agency's interpretation, which is deserving of substantial deference "unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation," Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 1217, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945), has been, with one exception, consistently maintained through Board decisions.
Likewise, prior to the Court of Appeals decision in this case, the Courts of Appeals had routinely reviewed for substantial evidence the factfinder's invocation determination under a preponderance of the evidence standard.
Accordingly, there is no reason to downgrade the normal deference accorded to an agency's interpretation of its own regulation. Cf. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983).
This case concerns the evidentiary threshold that a claimant of black lung benefits must meet to invoke the interim presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis under 20 CFR § 727.203(a) (1987). The Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation (Director) interprets the regulation to require that a claimant prove by a preponderance of the evidence one of the four medical requirements listed in § 727.203(a) to trigger the presumption. The Court of Appeals, en banc, rejected the Director's proffered interpretation and held that the presumption is invoked once the claimant has presented a single item of evidence meeting one of the medical requirementsthat is, "one positive x-ray, one qualifying set of ventilatory or blood gas studies, or one physician's opinion." Stapleton v. Westmoreland Coal Co., 785 F.2d 424, 436 (CA4 1986). The Court chooses to embrace the Director's view. Because I believe that the Director's interpretation of the regulation contravenes its plain language and creates a regulatory scheme that is unnecessarily complex and internally inconsistent, I dissent.
Under § (a)(1), the presumption is triggered when "a chest X ray, biopsy, or autopsy establishes the existence of pneumoconiosis." Under § (a)(4), the presumption is triggered when "other medical evidence, including the documented opinion of a physician exercising reasoned medical judgment, establishes the presence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment." The regulation does not refer to "the X-ray evidence taken as a whole," or "the weight of documented opinions of physicians"the inquiry mandated by the Court's interpretationbut rather to an X ray, or a physician's opinion. Moreover, the regulation does not provide that a claimant who presents a single qualifying piece of evidence may be presumed to be totally disabled because of pneumoconiosis, but rather provides that such a claimant "will be presumed" totally disabled because of the disease. The regulation thus expressly commands that a single qualifying X ray or a single documented physician's opinion will trigger the presumption.
Under this interpretation, an ALJ must weigh conflicting like-kind evidence before invoking the presumption. A more natural reading of "establish" in the context of the presumption-invocation stage, however, is simply that the ALJ must determine whether a claimant has come forward with an X ray, a set of ventilatory or blood gas studies, or a physician's opinion that meets the requirements and standards of the regulation. In other words, an ALJ determines whether the single item of evidence "establishes the existence of pneumoconiosis" or "establishes the presence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment" by referring to the strict reliability and authenticity requirements of the regulations, see, e.g., 20 CFR §§ 410.428, 727.206 (1987), and, with regard to ventilatory and blood gas studies, to the qualifying standards set out in § 727.203(a).
The Court argues that § (a)(1) cannot have been intended to refer to a single item of evidence because an X ray is probative only when it is interpreted by a qualified expert. The Court reasons that because the presumption is invoked by an X ray, and not by an expert's reading, an ALJ may have to consider different interpretations of the same X ray. From this premise, the Court concludes that "just as the ALJ must weigh conflicting interpretations of the same X-ray . . ., there would seem to be no reason why he must ignore all X-rays in a series except one." Ante, at 148149 (footnote omitted). No reason except the regulatory language. Whatever the merit of the Court's conclusion that conflicting readings of the same X ray must be weighed prior to invoking the presumption (for that question is not before the Court), the regulation's plain language requires that the presumption be invoked when a single X ray is read only as positive. In addition, contrary to the Court's characterization, additional X rays that indicate the absence of pneumoconiosis are not "ignored"; they are fully considered by the ALJ during the rebuttal stage, when all evidence against the presumed existence of pneumoconiosis is brought to bear.
The Court of Appeals ruling that a single qualifying test or medical opinion is sufficient to invoke the presumption is further supported by the comments that the Secretary of Labor issued in connection with the final promulgation of the regulations. In addressing the standard of rebuttal, the Secretary stated: "The Department cannot, as has been requested by some, look for the single item of evidence which would qualify a claimant on the basis of the interim presumption, and ignore other previously obtained evidence. This does not mean that the single item of evidence which establishes the presumption is overcome by a single item of evidence which rebuts the presumption." Notice of Final Rulemaking under the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977, 43 Fed.Reg. 36826 (1978) (hereinafter Notice of Rulemaking) (emphasis added).
The Court argues that the placement of the "all relevant medical evidence" requirement was inexact, and that the regulation requires only that all relevant medical evidence be considered at some point in the evaluation of a claim, whether it be during the invocation or rebuttal stage. Yet if the Secretary intended that the "all relevant medical evidence" language apply to both stages of the evaluation process, it is remarkable that he placed the language in the introduction to the rebuttal section. It would have been a simple matter, if such were the Secretary's intent, to place the "all relevant evidence" language at the beginning of § 727.200. I see no reason to assume such inartful drafting. Moreover, comments by the Secretary accompanying the final promulgation of the regulations conflict with the Court's interpretation. The Secretary stated: "The many comments which urge that all relevant evidence should not be considered in rebutting the interim presumption must also be rejected. . . . The Social Security regulations . . . similarly do not limit the evidence which can be considered in rebutting the interim presumption." Notice of Rulemaking 36826 (emphasis added). These comments demonstrate that the Secretary understood the language to apply directly to the rebuttal section.
In addition, the Director's approach renders virtually useless one of four grounds for rebuttal in part (b). Under § (b)(4), eligibility for benefits is rebutted if all relevant medical evidence establishes that the miner does not have pneumoconiosis. Yet in the Director's view all relevant medicalevidence has already been considered at the presumption-invocation stage. It is only when the evidence presented during the invocation stage is mismatched, as for example when the claimant produces qualifying blood-gas-studies evidence and the mine operator produces negative X rays, that the presumption may be triggered and rebuttal evidence under § (b)(4) is available that has not already been weighed. Moreover, as the Director acknowledges, if a claimant invokes the presumption under § (a)(1) by a preponderance of X-ray, biopsy, or autopsy evidence, as a practical matter there is no further evidence that the coal mine operator could submit to rebut the presumed existence of pneumoconiosis because such (a)(1) evidence is the most reliable method of diagnosing the disease. See Brief for Federal Respondent 24, n. 22. The Court counters that "nothing in the regulation requires each rebuttal subsection to be fully available in each case." Ante, at 150. This is of course true. Yet it is extraordinary that the regulation would intend to make the rebuttal stage an often useless exercise with respect to the central aspect of a valid claim: whether a miner suffers from pneumoconiosis.
The Court's willingness to accept the Director's interpretation of the regulation is based, I believe, on a misperception of the problem Congress and the Department of Labor were trying to alleviate with the interim presumption. Pneumoconiosis is an elusive and progressive disease. Congress was deeply concerned about the difficulty of diagnosing pneumoconiosis and the dearth of medical-testing facilities available to miners. Testimony before congressional committees and by Members of Congress repeatedly emphasized the unreliability of negative test results. As this Court stated in Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 31-32, and n. 33, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2899-2900, and n. 33, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976), "Congress was presented with significant evidence demonstrating that X-ray testing that fails to disclose pneumoconiosis cannot be depended upon as a trustworthy indicator of the absence of the disease," whereas there was no "authoritative indications that X-ray evidence of the presence of pneumoconiosis is untrustworthy."
Juxtaposed with the difficulties in diagnosing pneumoconiosis was evidence that the disease was rife among long-term coal miners. Congressman Paul Simon noted one study that found that autopsies of 400 coal miners with more than 20 years' experience showed that 90-95% of them had pneumoconiosis. House Committee on Education and Labor, Black Lung Benefits Reform Act and Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1977, 96th Cong., 282-283 (Comm.Print 1979). Testimony before the Senate estimated that as many as 50% of all coal miners will eventually become disabled from pneumoconiosis. See Hearings on S. 355 et al. before Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, pp. 641, 856 (1969) (statements of Dr. I.E. Buff and Dr. Leon Cander).
Title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 792, 30 U.S.C. 801 et seq., was amended by the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972, 86 Stat. 150, 30 U.S.C. 901 et seq., the Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1977, 92 Stat. 11, the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977, 92 Stat. 95, the Black Lung Benefits Amendments of 1981, 95 Stat. 1643, the Black Lung Benefits Revenue Act of 1981, 95 Stat. 1635, 26 U.S.C. 1 note, and the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, Pub.L. No. 99-272, § 13203(a), (d), 100 Stat. 312, 313, 26 U.S.C. 9501 note (1986).
Part B of the Act is codified at 30 U.S.C. 921 et seq.
Part C is codified at 30 U.S.C. 931 et seq.
See 30 U.S.C. 902(f)(1). As the Court of Appeals noted:
See 30 U.S.C. 902(f)(2).
"In carrying out the provisions of this part, the Secretary shall to the maximum extent feasible (and consistent with the provisions of this part) utilize the personnel and procedures he uses in determining entitlement to disability insurance benefit payments under section 223 of the Social Security Act [
42 U.S.C. 423], but no claim for benefits under this part shall be denied solely on the basis of the results of a chest roentgenogram [X-ray]. In determining the validity of claims under this part, all relevant evidence shall be considered, including, where relevant, medical tests such as blood gas studies, X-ray examination, electrocardiogram, pulmonary function studies, or physical performance tests, and any medical history, evidence submitted by the claimant's physician, or his wife's affidavits, and in the case of a deceased miner, other appropriate affidavits of persons with knowledge of the miner's physical condition, and other supportive materials." § 923(b) (emphasis added).
less than
Petitioners agree that the employer's rebuttal burden is one of proof as well as production. The Secretary also takes the position that the presumption should be invoked in cases of "true doubt"that is, if the claimant's and employer's invocation evidence is of equal weight. Brief for the Federal Respondent 33, 39. This position ensures that the employer will win, on invocation or rebuttal, only when its evidence is stronger than the claimant's. The Benefits Review Board (BRB) "has consistently upheld the principle that, where true doubt exists, that doubt shall be resolved in favor of the claimant." Lessar v. C.F. & I. Steel Corp., 3 BLR 1-63, 1-68 (Ben.Rev.Bd.1981).
The Court of Appeals also relied upon evidence that an early draft of the regulation contained a provision that "would have required the adjudicator to weigh all the medical test evidence to determine whether the weight of this evidence established total disability." See Solomons 897, n. 138. This provision was eliminated in response to objections raised by congressional staff members. The Court of Appeals concluded that this history demonstrates that the final draft of the regulation was not intended to require the weighing of any evidence before the presumption may be invoked. See 785 F.2d, at 451-452, and n. 5. We are not persuaded. First, the regulation quite plainly does not require proof of total disability in order to invoke the presumption under §§ (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3). Second, the rejected provision would have required, in determining total disability, a weighing of "all the medical test evidence"i.e., X-rays, ventilatory studies, and blood gas studies. This method of invocation appears simply to have been scrapped in favor of permitting a claimant to meet one of the enumerated medical requirements.
"Inferences and presumptions are a staple of our adversary system of factfinding. It is often necessary for the trier of fact to determine the existence of an element of the crimethat is, an 'ultimate' or 'elemental' factfrom the existence of one or more 'evidentiary' or 'basic' facts. . . . The value of these evidentiary devices, and their validity under the Due Process Clause, vary from case to case, however, depending on the strength of the connection between the particular basic and elemental facts involved and on the degree to which the device curtails the factfinder's freedom to assess the evidence independently." County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 156, 99 S.Ct. 2213, 2224, 60 L.Ed.2d 777 (1979).
The statute itself, of course, requires certain presumptions for pre-July 1, 1973, SSA claims. For example, the statute presumes a miner's pneumoconiosis to have arisen out of coal mine employment if he has worked for ten or more years in one or more coal mines. 30 U.S.C. 921(c)(1); see also §§ 921(c)(2), (3), and (4) (other SSA claim presumptions). Since Labor's interim presumption may be no less restrictive than the SSA's, these § 921(c) presumptions apply indirectly to Labor claims as well.
Lurking beneath the surface of this case is the constitutional concern that there be "some rational connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed." Mobile, Jackson, & Kansas City R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U.S. 35, 43, 31 S.Ct. 136, 138, 55 L.Ed. 78 (1910). There is some question whether pneumoconiosis, for example, can be considered "proved" and therefore serve as the constitutional predicate for presuming ultimate factsif evidence tending to disprove pneumoconiosis is not permitted to be considered at invocation. See Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 28-29, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2898-2899, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976) (statutory presumption of causation, 30 U.S.C. 921(c)(1), is triggered only on "proof of pneumoconiosis" plus 10 years employment).
Because we agree with petitioners that the regulation itself requires a claimant to prove an invocation fact by a preponderance of the evidence, we need not pass on petitioners' alternative argument, namely, that § 7(c) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 556(d), requires a claimant to prove an invocation fact by a preponderance of the evidence.