Opinion ID: 3014238
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The ALJ’s 1997 Decision

Text: In the case at hand, we held in The ALJ’s 1997 decision denying Soubik I that neither the ALJ nor the BRB benefits was based on Dr. Spagnolo’s opinion. The ALJ discounted Dr. Wagner’s opinion as too vague, and he 10 In Lukosevicz v. Director, OWCP, discounted Dr. Karlavage’s opinion 888 F.2d 1001, 1004, 1006 (3d Cir. 1989), because it was based on “the report of the we held that if the pneumoconiosis hastens miner’s relatives that pneumoconiosis was death, even briefly, it can be considered a involved in the miner’s death” as Dr. substantially contributing cause of death Wagner had conveyed to them. The ALJ under 20 C.F.R. § 718.205(c). 8 had given any consideration to the lay Karlavage’s February 22, 1995 letter evidence offered in support of Mrs. established that the doctor “bases his Soubik’s claim, and this evidence “could conclusions regarding the cause of the be enough to satisfy Mrs. Soubik’s burden miner’s death, in part, . . . only on of proof that pneumoconiosis hastened her statements from the miner’s relatives.” husband’s death.” We also noted that the The ALJ concluded that Dr. ALJ and BRB had relied heavily on the Spagnolo’s opinion would outweigh the opinion of Dr. Spagnolo, and that he had other doctors’ opinions even if they could formed his opinion “based on his review of establish that pneumoconiosis hastened Soubik’s medical history” rather than the Soubik’s death because of Dr. Spagnolo’s opinions of Soubik’s treating physicians, superior credentials and because “Dr. Dr. Karlavage and Dr. Wagner. Wagner. . . did not treat the miner for D. The ALJ’s 2001 Decision on respiratory problems and Dr. Karlavage Remand only saw the miner on three office visits over a six month period.” The ALJ Upon remand from Soubik I, the believed that the lay testimony was also ALJ summarized the lay testimony in the outweighed by “the thorough and complete record. He found that the lay opinions did report of Dr. Spagnolo.” The ALJ not clearly establish that Mr. Soubik’s described Dr. Spagnolo as both “[a] highly ongoing deterioration was due to qualified. . . pulmonary specialist” as well pneumoconiosis or a pulmonary condition. as the beneficiary of a complete review of He also discussed each of the three Soubik’s medical records. The ALJ thus doctors’ opinions again, and reached the concluded that Mrs. Soubik did not same conclusion, that Dr. Spagnolo’s establish pne umoc onio si s w a s a opinion was the most persuasive. substantially contributing factor in her The ALJ again found that Dr. husband’s death or that it hastened his Wagner’s opinion was “equivocal and death, and he therefore denied survivor’s vague” because he merely stated that the benefits. pneumoconiosis “could have contributed”