Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/557/563/272891/
Timestamp: 2019-10-20 08:36:54
Document Index: 801331945

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 921', '§ 921', '§ 923', '§ 902', '§ 410', '§ 921', '§ 923']

Willie Morris, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Forrest David Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education Andwelfare, Defendant-appellee, 557 F.2d 563 (6th Cir. 1977) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Sixth Circuit › 1977 › Willie Morris, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Forrest David Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education Andwelf...
Willie Morris, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Forrest David Mathews, Secretary of Health, Education Andwelfare, Defendant-appellee, 557 F.2d 563 (6th Cir. 1977)
US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - 557 F.2d 563 (6th Cir. 1977) Argued April 4, 1977. Decided June 24, 1977
In considering this claim, neither the A.L.J. nor the District Court considered the fact that the record cited above clearly entitled appellant to a rebuttable presumption of total disability under 30 U.S.C. § 921(c) (4) (Supp. II, 1972), which reads:
In Ansel v. Weinberger, 529 F.2d 304 (6th Cir. 1976), this court rejected negative X-ray and negative pulmonary function studies as evidence which suffices to rebut the § 921(c) (4) presumption. The court said:
The court further concludes that there is no substantial basis for the finding that Claude Ansel did not establish that he was totally disabled within the definition of the Black Lung Act. His treating physician stated unequivocally that Ansel was totally disabled for work in a coal mine. No other medical witness contradicted this statement, and the lay testimony supported Dr. Bope's opinion. The witness Otto White testified that he began working in the mines with Claude Ansel in 1933 and that Ansel was one of the best workers. Mr. White had continued to see Ansel "a couple of times a month" after they left the mine. He testified that even while walking downhill it was necessary for Mr. Ansel to stop and rest after 50 feet or so, and that his condition had gotten "a lot worse" in the last five years. The administrative law judge received this testimony as competent "other evidence" and considered it along with the medical evidence and the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Ansel. He did not construe amended 30 U.S.C. § 923(b) as permitting lay testimony of persons other than the miner's wife only in cases where the miner is deceased. This is a reasonable construction. Since disability of a living miner may not be established by the wife's testimony alone under Section 921(c) (4), other lay evidence must have been contemplated.
There is no evidence in the record from which it could be concluded that at the time of his hearing Claude Ansel could engage ". . . in gainful employment requiring the skills and abilities comparable to those of any employment in a mine or mines in which he previously engaged with some regularity and over a substantial period of time." 30 U.S.C. § 902(f). Though fluoroscopy disclosed an early stage of silicosis, a condition included within the definition of pneumoconiosis in 20 C.F.R. § 410.110(o), the applicant's chest X-rays were interpreted as negative with respect to the requirements of 30 U.S.C. § 921(c) (3) for an irrebuttable presumption of pneumoconiosis. Thus he relied on the rebuttable presumption of Section 921 (c) (4). Giving primary consideration to the medical evidence and considering the lay testimony concerning the limitations on Mr. Ansel's physical activities, all in light of Ansel's age, education and work experience, we hold that this record "demonstrates the existence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment. . . ." Section 921(c) (4). Since the Act provides that when these conditions are met "there shall be a rebuttable presumption that such miner is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis . . ." Id., the contrary finding of the administrative law judge affirmed by the district court was clearly erroneous unless the Secretary may be held to have rebutted the presumption.
The Secretary contends that the presumption was rebutted by evidence which established that Claude Ansel did not have pneumoconiosis. He relies on the negative findings of three radiologists who examined X-rays and the pulmonary studies. It is obvious that the negative X-rays may not be relied upon to rebut the presumption of Section 921(c) (4). If he had been able to produce a positive X-ray, there would have been no need to invoke the presumption. The very existence of a negative X-ray is a prerequisite to reliance upon the presumption of pneumoconiosis as established by other evidence. Furthermore, under the 1972 amendment, negative X-ray evidence may not be the sole basis for a denial of benefits. 30 U.S.C. § 923(b). Nor do we believe the presumption of Section 921(c) (4) can be rebutted by showing that pneumoconiosis was not established by pulmonary function studies. The regulation which establishes the levels required for a finding of disabling pneumoconiosis on the basis of a ventilatory study does not purport to provide proof of the nonexistence of pneumoconiosis. Once Claude Ansel produced evidence which entitled him to the presumption of Section 921(c) (4), that presumption could be rebutted only by establishing that he did not have pneumoconiosis, there being no contention that his impairment did not arise out of employment in the mines. In view of the unequivocal testimony of Dr. Bope, it appears that the Secretary would have been required at least to produce a medical opinion that Mr. Ansel did not have pneumoconiosis in order to rebut the presumption. No such testimony appears in this record. See Whitson v. Finch, 437 F.2d 728, 732 (6th Cir. 1971).