Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/105/166/598721/
Timestamp: 2017-10-23 06:13:17
Document Index: 51825169

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 718', 'art 718', '§ 718', '§ 718', 'art 718', 'art 718', '§ 718', '§ 718', '§ 718', '§ 718', '§ 718', '§ 718', '§ 718', '§ 718', '§ 718', '§ 718', '§ 718', '§ 718', '§ 718', '§ 557']

William B. Lane, Petitioner, v. Union Carbide Corporation; Director, Office of Workers'compensation Programs, United States Department Oflabor, Respondents, 105 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 1997) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Fourth Circuit › 1997 › William B. Lane, Petitioner, v. Union Carbide Corporation; Director, Office of Workers'compensation...
William B. Lane, Petitioner, v. Union Carbide Corporation; Director, Office of Workers'compensation Programs, United States Department Oflabor, Respondents, 105 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 1997)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 105 F.3d 166 (4th Cir. 1997)
Argued Oct. 31, 1996. Decided Jan. 24, 1997
We review the ALJ's findings, as affirmed by the BRB, to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law. Richardson v. Director, OWCP, 94 F.3d 164, 167 (4th Cir. 1996). We may not reweigh the evidence or substitute our views for those of the ALJ, and we must affirm if substantial evidence supports the ALJ's decision. Wyatt v. Califano, 618 F.2d 1079, 1080 (4th Cir. 1980). The Supreme Court has defined "substantial evidence" as " 'more than a mere scintilla' " of evidence, but only such evidence " 'as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.' " Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S. Ct. 1420, 1427, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842 (1971) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229, 59 S. Ct. 206, 217, 83 L. Ed. 126 (1938)).
The benefit eligibility regulations listed in 20 C.F.R. Part 718 apply to claims, such as the instant one, filed after April 1, 1980. Robinson v. Pickands Mather & Co., 914 F.2d 35, 36 (4th Cir. 1990). Under Part 718, the miner must prove: 1) that he has pneumoconiosis; 2) that the disease arose out of his coal mine employment; 3) that he is totally disabled from performing his usual coal mining work; and 4) that his pneumoconiosis is a contributing cause of his total disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 718.201-.204 (1996); Robinson, 914 F.2d at 36-38. The sole issue that Lane raises in the instant appeal is whether the BRB erred in finding that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that Lane failed to establish total disability.
The applicable regulations provide that a miner is considered "totally disabled" if pneumoconiosis prevents the miner from performing his usual coal mine employment and from engaging in gainful employment in the geographic area that he resides in. 20 C.F.R. § 718.204(b). Section 718.204(c) provides four specific methods for establishing total disability. In the absence of contrary probative evidence, the miner can establish total disability by introducing any of the following: 1) pulmonary function studies that show values equal to or less than the values listed in Appendix B of Part 718; 2) arterial blood gas studies that show the values listed in Appendix C of Part 718; 3) evidence that the miner has pneumoconiosis and suffers from cor pulmonale with right-sided congestive heart failure; or 4) a physician's report based on medically acceptable clinical and laboratory diagnostic techniques that concludes that the miner's respiratory or pulmonary condition prevents him from engaging in his usual coal mine employment. 20 C.F.R. § 718.204(c) (1)-(4).
The miner can establish total disability upon a mere showing of evidence that satisfies any one of the four alternative methods, but only " [i]n the absence of contrary probative evidence." 20 C.F.R. § 718.204(c). Thus, if the miner makes such a showing, the ALJ must then determine whether the record contains contrary probative evidence. Shedlock v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 9 BLR 1-195 (Ben.Rev.Bd.1986), aff'd on recon. en banc, 9 BLR 1-236 (Ben.Rev.Bd.1987). If contrary evidence does exist, the ALJ must assign the contrary evidence appropriate weight and determine whether it outweighs the evidence that supports a finding of total disability. Id.
Thus, the only issues that we must decide are whether Lane established total disability pursuant to § 718.204(c) (2) through Dr. Rasmussen's arterial blood gas studies or pursuant to § 718.204(c) (4) through the medical reports of Drs. Rasmussen and Lee. The first ALJ opinion concluded that Lane had established total disability pursuant to § 718.204(c) (2) through Dr. Rasmussen's arterial blood gas studies. However, in the first remand, the ALJ reversed his earlier holding and concluded that the arterial blood gas studies did not establish total disability. Lane, however, argues on appeal that the arterial blood gas studies in fact do establish total disability pursuant to § 718.204(c) (2).
The various doctors performed five arterial blood gas studies on Lane that tested him both at rest and after exercise. Dr. Rasmussen's 1974 resting arterial blood gas study showed a value that failed to establish total disability, but the exercise study showed a value sufficient to establish total disability. Dr. Rasmussen's 1984 arterial blood gas studies reached the same result, and Dr. Gaziano affirmed the validity of Dr. Rasmussen's 1984 studies. Thus, Lane adequately demonstrated evidence that supports a finding of total disability under § 718.204(c) (2).
Substantial contrary probative evidence also exists with regard to total disability under § 718.204(c) (4). On the first remand, the ALJ concluded that although the pulmonary function and arterial blood gas studies did not establish total disability pursuant to § 718.204(c) (2), Dr. Rasmussen's medical report did establish total disability pursuant to § 718.204(c) (4). On the second remand, however, the ALJ concluded that Lane failed to establish total disability pursuant to § 718.204(c) (4).
Lane first argues that the ALJ should have given diminished evidentiary weight to the medical reports of Drs. Zaldivar and Renn, which questioned Dr. Rasmussen's exercise blood gas studies, because Drs. Zaldivar and Renn were not aware of Dr. Gaziano's validation of Dr. Rasmussen's 1984 blood gas studies at the time that they wrote their reports. In his report, however, Dr. Gaziano supplied no reason for his opinion and merely checked a box indicating that Dr. Rasmussen's tests were technically accurate. Dr. Zaldivar, on the other hand, explained in detail the medical reasons why he believed that Dr. Rasmussen's tests were inaccurate. In addition, Lane's counsel told Dr. Zaldivar about Dr. Gaziano's contrary opinion during cross examination at the hearing, but Dr. Gaziano's opinion did not alter Dr. Zaldivar's conclusion. Moreover, we must defer to the ALJ's evaluation of the proper weight to accord conflicting medical opinions. See Stiltner v. Island Creek Coal Co., 86 F.3d 337, 342 (4th Cir. 1996). We therefore hold that the ALJ did not err in crediting the medical opinions of Drs. Zaldivar and Renn over the medical opinion of Dr. Gaziano.
Lane also challenges the credibility of Drs. Zaldivar and Renn on the ground that their medical reports do not satisfy the Fourth Circuit's standard for total disability set forth in Eagle v. Armco, Inc., 943 F.2d 509 (4th Cir. 1991), and Walker v. Director, OWCP, 927 F.2d 181 (4th Cir. 1991). In Walker, 927 F.2d at 183, we noted that § 718.204(b) (1) predicates total disability on the miner's inability to do his "usual coal mine work." We therefore held that a physician who asserts that a claimant can perform his assigned duties must state his knowledge of the physical efforts that the particular job requires and relate those efforts to the miner's impairment. Id. at 184. In Eagle, 943 F.2d at 512, we held that the ALJ's reliance on one physician's opinion that the miner could perform the usual activities required of a coal miner constituted error where the physician stated that he had "no idea" what the miner's job encompassed.
Lane also contends that Dr. Zaldivar's opinion was "hostile" to the Act because Dr. Zaldivar noted that early simple coal workers' pneumoconiosis would "not be expected" to cause pulmonary impairment. In Thorn v. Itmann Coal Co., 3 F.3d 713, 719 (4th Cir. 1993), we rejected the opinion of a physician who stated that "simple pneumoconiosis does not 'as a rule' cause total disability." We noted that a physician's opinion based on a premise "antithetical" to the Act is not probative. Id. We therefore held that a physician's opinion may be discredited when the physician bases his or her conclusion "on a premise fundamentally at odds with the statutory and regulatory scheme." Id.
Lane also argues that the ALJ impermissibly relied on the resting blood gas studies that Drs. Zaldivar and Ahmed conducted. Both physicians failed to conduct exercise blood gas studies, and Lane correctly points out that the applicable regulations provide that physicians must administer an exercise study unless such a study is medically contraindicated. See 20 C.F.R. § 718.105(b) (1996).
Lane next argues that the ALJ erred in discrediting Dr. Rasmussen's reports. Lane points to a variety of factors, such as Dr. Rasmussen's qualifications and experience, that could bolster Dr. Rasmussen's credibility. However, an ALJ may reject a medical opinion based on an invalid study. See Director, OWCP v. Siwiec, 894 F.2d 635, 639 (3d Cir. 1990). The ALJ in the instant case permissibly found persuasive Dr. Zaldivar's invalidation of Dr. Rasmussen's underlying exercise blood gas study. Moreover, an ALJ does not have to accept the opinion or theory of any given medical witness. The ALJ may weigh the medical evidence and draw his own conclusions. White v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 633 F.2d 1070, 1075 (4th Cir. 1980). Lane, in effect, asks us to reweigh the evidence, and we may not do so on appellate review.
Next, Lane contends that the ALJ erred in failing sufficiently to consider the reports of Drs. Gaziano and Lee. Although Lane does not state the basis for his challenge, we presume he contends that the ALJ violated the Administrative Procedure Act (the "APA"), 5 U.S.C.A. § 557(c) (3) (A) (West 1996), which provides that all ALJ opinions must include a statement of "findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefor, on all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record." In order to comply with the APA, the ALJ must consider all of the relevant evidence. See Jordan v. Califano, 582 F.2d 1333, 1335 (4th Cir. 1978).