Opinion ID: 770520
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Benham Coal's Motion to Strike

Text: 6 Benham Coal's motion to strike argues that the Director was without authority to file a pro-petitioner brief in a BLBA case. As part of its argument, Benham Coal concedes that under Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Director, OWCP, 519 U.S. 248 (1997), the Director may file a pro-petitioner brief in cases on review under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-50. In Ingalls, the Supreme Court held that under the LHWCA the Director has standing to argue in the courts of appeals as a respondent, and it explained that [t]he Director, even as a respondent, is free to argue on behalf of the petitioner. 519 U.S. at 270. But, Benham Coal argues vociferously that this authority does not extend to cases under the Black Lung Benefits Act. We, however, disagree: the Director does have such authority in cases under the BLBA. 7 Although it is true, as Benham Coal argues, that Ingalls was decided under the LHWCA and that BLBA claims are administered in a slightly different fashion by the Department of Labor, these distinctions are of no moment. 2 The BLBA itself explicitly provides for the Director's involvement in any case, see 30 U.S.C. § 932(k) (The Secretary [represented by the Director] shall be a party in any proceeding relative to a claim for benefits under the BLBA), and the legislative history suggests that Congress intended that the Director be authorized to file pro-petitioner briefs. See Senate Comm. on Human Resources, S. Rep. No. 95-209, at 22 (1977), Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977 (This [Director's] participation is especially significant in black lung claims when, for example, the claimant has been unable to obtain legal representation or where significant issues relating to the interpretation of the Act are to be determined.) More importantly, this court has held that [t]he Director is permitted to seek review of Board decisions in the courts to 'ensure proper and consistent administration' of the Act under the BLBA. Gibas v. Saginaw Mining Co., 748 F.2d 1112, 1114 n.2 (6th Cir. 1984). Andfurther, we have acknowledged the Director's authority to file a pro-petitioner brief as a respondent, precisely as he has done here. See id.; Staton v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 65 F.3d 55, 58 (6th Cir. 1995); Bentley v. Peabody Coal Co., No. 96-3353, 1997 WL 560057, at , n.1 (6th Cir. Sept. 5, 1997) (unpublished opinion). Therefore, despite Benham Coal's arguments to the contrary, we hold that the Director, as a respondent, is authorized to file a pro-petitioner brief in this court in a claimant's appeal from a Board decision under the BLBA. 8 But, Benham Coal also argues that, even if the Director generally has the authority to file a pro-petitioner brief, the Supreme Court's decision in Director, OWCP v. Perini N. River Assocs., 459 U.S. 297 (1983), establishes prerequisites for such a filing and that those prerequisites have not been met here. Benham Coal contends that in Perini--which, like Ingalls, was decided under the LHWCA--the Supreme Court grounded the Director's standing to challenge a decision by the Board on two conditions: (1) the claimant is present on appeal and (2) the claimant has filed a supporting brief raising the same issues as the Director. See id. at 305-06. Here, Benham Coal claims that we know of no brief, pro se or otherwise, having been filed by Cornett before this Court. Benham's Motion to Strike at 5. Benham concludes that the Director does not have standing under Perini because Cornett is not present, and the Director's brief should be stricken accordingly. But even assuming that the Benham's interpretation of Perini is correct--and we are not convinced that it is--Benham Coal's argument fails. As a look at the record demonstrates, Benham Coal's assertion that Cornett is not present is just plain wrong. Cornett completed his pro se petitioner's brief on a form provided by the Sixth Circuit (appropriately titled Pro Se Petitioner's Brief) and filed it with the Clerk on April 26, 1999. In that form brief, Cornett clearly points to the opinion of Drs. Vaezy and Baker as the focus of the dispute. Thus, it seems that the claimant is present and his brief has raised the issues that the Director also raises, albeit in much greater detail, in his brief. 9 Finally, Benham Coal argues that because neither Cornett nor the Director raised the issue involving the reports from Drs. Vaezy and Baker before the Board, they are barred from raising it now. With respect to the Director's absence below, its absence before the Board does not preclude the Director from participating on appeal. See Goldsmith v. Director, OWCP, 838 F.2d 1079, 1080 (9th Cir. 1988). As for Cornett's involvement, Benham Coal's claim that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not raising the present issue before the Board also fails. The Board itself has a long-standing practice of assuming that a pro se litigant appealing an ALJ's decision raises all adversely-decided issues, including the issue whether the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., McFall v. Jewel Ridge Coal Corp., 12 Black Lung Rep. (MB) 1-176 (Ben. Rev. Bd. 1989). Cornett was pro se before the Board, and, indeed, the Board's decision rejecting Cornett's claims specifically referenced this long-standing practice. Because the Board assumed that Cornett raised all adversely-decided issues, we find that Cornett exhausted his administrative remedies. Accordingly, we deny Benham Coal's motion to strike the Director's brief.