Source: https://casetext.com/case/rose-v-clinchfield-coal-co
Timestamp: 2019-11-12 19:37:27
Document Index: 714931669

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 921', '§ 945', '§ 923', '§ 921', '§ 410', '§ 921', '§ 921', '§ 410', '§ 410']

Rose v. Clinchfield Coal Co, 614 F.2d 936 | Casetext
Rose v. Clinchfield Coal Co.
614 F.2d 936 (4th Cir. 1980)
Rosev.Clinchfield Coal Co.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth CircuitFeb 6, 1980
The premise underlying Bethlehem's view of its rebuttal obligations is mistaken. Pneumoconiosis contracted…
Mitchell v. Office of Workers Compensation Programs
Drummond Coal Co. v. Freeman, 733 F.2d 1523, 1525 n. 3 (11th Cir. 1984) (citing Usery v. Turner Elkhorn…
holding that claimant prevailed because she attained the benefit of the presumption and rebuttal was precluded, given uncontested fact that claimant did suffer from simple pneumoconiosis
Summary of this case from Mitchell v. Office of Workers Compensation Programs
concluding that the Board erred in failing to impose on respondents the burden of rebutting the presumption
In Rose, the Hearing Officer below had made the "implicit finding" that the coal miner's lung cancer constituted a "totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment" under 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4).
Summary of this case from Hunter v. Director, Office of Workers' Comp
Argued December 7, 1979.
Frederick W. Adkins, Norton, Va. (Cline, McAfee Adkins, Norton, Va., on brief), for petitioner.
Elizabeth S. Woodruff, Abingdon, Va. (Penn, Stuart, Eskridge Jones, Abingdon, Va., on brief), for respondent Clinchfield Coal Co.
Virginia B. Ragle, U.S. Dept. of Labor (Carin Ann Clauss, Sol. of Labor, Laurie M. Streeter, Associate Sol., Judith E. Wolf, Co-Counsel for Black Lung Benefits, Lee D. Richardson, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., on brief), Washington, D.C., for respondent Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.
In its January 31, 1979, decision, the Board (one member dissenting) vacated the Hearing Officer's previous finding that petitioner was entitled to an award; the Board rejected her claim on the ground that her deceased husband's disability and death were caused by lung cancer and not by pneumoconiosis ("black lung"). On review of the record, we find that substantial evidence does not support the Board's ruling. Accordingly, we reverse, vacating the decision of the Board and ordering payment of benefits to the claimant.
Pursuant to a provision of the Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977, which amended certain provisions of the 1969 Act, cases pending on the effective date of the amendments and subsequently denied would be remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for review, generally on the existing record, under the 1977 Act. 30 U.S.C. § 945. Accordingly, the Board directed that the instant claim be so remanded.
The parties agree, and the Board found, that Rose suffered from simple pneumoconiosis, having first been advised of his condition in 1972. He also suffered from lung cancer. Because of his lung problems, Rose was required to stop work for the Company on September 25, 1974. In December, 1974, he lodged a claim with the Department of Labor for Black Lung benefits. He died February 6, 1975, and the cause of death was listed as cancer of the lung with metastasis.
In 1972 he had presented a claim to the Industrial Commission of Virginia, the State workmen's compensation agency, an initial step required by the Act, 30 U.S.C. § 923(c). He had, at the Commission's direction, received fifty weekly compensation payments from Clinchfield Coal Company.
If a miner was employed for fifteen years or more in one or more underground coal mines, [and if chest roentgenogram is negative as to complicated pneumoconiosis], and if other evidence demonstrates the existence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment, then there shall be a rebuttable presumption that such miner is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis, that his death was due to pneumoconiosis, or that at the time of his death he was totally disabled by pneumoconiosis. . . . The Secretary may rebut such presumption only by establishing that (A) such miner does not, or did not, have pneumoconiosis, or that (B) his respiratory or pulmonary impairment did not arise out of, or in connection with, employment in a coal mine.
Under this section petitioner will prevail because she meets its prerequisites, as the following apposition of her claim and the statute makes manifest. First, that Charlie Rose was employed for more than 15 years in underground coal mines is not questioned. Second, as the Board noted, the Hearing Officer found Rose ceased work because of his "simple pneumoconiosis coupled with his severe breathing impairment which was caused by lung cancer . . ." Rose v. Clinchfield Coal Company, BRB No. 76-490 BLA, at 2 (Jan. 31, 1979). The Board, in overturning the Hearing Officer's award, did not question the implicit finding that Rose's lung cancer constituted a "totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment." 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4).
See 20 C.F.R. §§ 410.401(b)(2) (defining "pneumoconiosis" to encompass "[a]ny other chronic respiratory or pulmonary impairment" satisfying the conditions for the presumptions), 410.412 (defining "total disability"), 410.454(b)(1) (establishing conditions for presumption of pneumoconiosis for survivor's claim).
Respondents make much of the use of the term "chronic" in the regulations, asserting that cancer is an acute disease. In the absence of a specific definition of the term in these provisions, no such technical distinction should be made. In view of the fact that Rose's lung cancer was initially diagnosed, at an advanced stage, on November 14, 1974, and Rose's death occurred on February 6, 1975, it is not unreasonable to characterize his lung cancer as a progressive condition of some duration — in short, a "chronic" condition.
The showing that Rose (1) had served more than the requisite number of years in the mines and (2) had suffered from a disabling respiratory impairment triggers the presumption set forth in section 411(c)(4). The statute quite clearly gives the claimant, at this point, the benefit of a presumption that entitles her to compensation unless the Secretary rebuts that presumption in the precise manner specified. 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4)(A), (B). Rebuttal under clause (A) is precluded, given the uncontested fact that Rose did suffer from simple pneumoconiosis. Accordingly, the Rose claim under section 411(c)(4) may be defeated only upon the respondents' production of substantial evidence that the decedent's "impairment did not arise out of, or in connection with, employment in a coal mine." 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4)(B); 20 C.F.R. § 410.454(b)(2). See Clinchfield Coal Company v. Fleming, 606 F.2d 441, 442 (4th Cir. 1979).
The provision in no way indicates that any more severe form of the ailment is meant; rather, simple pneumoconiosis is embraced within the broad definition of the term "pneumoconiosis" in the regulations. See 20 C.F.R. § 410.401(b)(1).
The Board erred in failing to impose on the respondents the burden of rebutting this presumption. The Board concluded that the claimant "did not establish entitlement to black lung benefits" under section 411(c)(4) of the Act because she failed to demonstrate "any causal relationship. . . between the miner's cancer and pneumoconiosis or between his cancer and his coal mine employment." Rose v. Clinchfield Coal Company, BRB No. 76-490 BLA, at 7 (Jan. 31, 1979). Her failure to demonstrate such a relationship, however, does not bar her recovery; on the contrary, it is the respondents' failure effectively to rule out such a relationship that is crucial here. Testimony elicited by the Company from Dr. S.W. Morgan, the deceased miner's physician, and apparently accorded considerable weight in the Board's decision, id. at 6-7, is clearly insufficient to meet the statutory burden. At best, the testimony established only that the physician would not state with certainty that the miner's cancer did arise from his previously existing pneumoconiosis or from his work in the mines; the witness did not rule out the possibility of such a connection.
There is no evidence that it was, but then, you know, since I don't know how this ties in with pneumoconiosis, I can't say that it did or didn't, no way I can be —