Opinion ID: 738534
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A chest X ray, biopsy, or autopsy establishes the existence of pneumoconiosis;

Text: 17 2. Ventilatory studies establish the presence of a chronic respiratory or pulmonary disease according to certain criteria; 18 3. Blood gas study results are below certain disability criteria; or 19 4. Other medical evidence, including the documented opinion of a physician exercising reasoned medical judgment, establishes the presence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment. 20 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(a) (1996). However, evidence that establishes that the miner does not, or did not, have pneumoconiosis rebuts this presumption. Id. § 727.203(b)(4). In addition, where the medical evidence demonstrates that the miner did not have pneumoconiosis, a survivor's claim also fails. See id. § 718.205(c)(1)-(2). In the instant case, the administrative law judge found, and the Board affirmed, that the evidence taken as a whole established that Mr. Crace did not have pneumoconiosis. We agree with the Board that the administrative law judge had substantial evidence on which to base this conclusion. 21 The medical evidence in this case is mixed. Mr. Crace's death certificate lists pneumoconiosis by history as a contributing factor, though it is clear that the immediate cause of his death was metastatic lung cancer. On the other hand, eleven board-certified radiologists, or B-readers, found no evidence of pneumoconiosis in Mr. Crace's X rays. Only one B-reader found the X rays positive, and the administrative law judge noted that this set of X rays was not among the most recent. See Decision and Order Denying Benefits at 8 (J.A. at 20). Though several of the pulmonary function studies fell below the disability standard, the most recent did not. The administrative law judge credited this one, noting that pneumoconiosis is a progressive disease. Id. at 10 (J.A. at 22). Though the earliest blood gas study results were below the disability level, the three others were well above. Dr. Mettu, a specialist in internal and pulmonary medicine, examined Mr. Crace and concluded that he did not have pneumoconiosis. Several other doctors, among them Drs. Tuteur, Renzitti, Broudy, and Fino, reached the same conclusion. It is true that this evidence is not uncontroverted, but the scope of our review is narrow, and the administrative law judge clearly had sufficient evidence on which to base his conclusion that Mr. Crace was not disabled by--and did not die as a result of--pneumoconiosis. As a result, Mrs. Crace is not entitled to benefits on either her survivor's claim or Mr. Crace's direct claim. 22 In this case, when the most recent administrative law judge finally reached the merits of the claim (the medical determination), his determination differed from that of the first administrative law judge. While this result may seem anomalous, the law allows such a result on the theory that every litigant is entitled to its day in court, and to defend itself by confronting witnesses and developing its own evidence and legal theories. Thus, because Kentland-Elkhorn was not a party to the first administrative law judge's resolution of this case, it is not bound by it. The Board correctly remanded the case to be reheard with the company substituted as the defending party. In this case, the passage of time also contributed to the changed outcome. Additional doctors examined Mr. Crace and his medical records. Recent evidence is particularly important in black lung cases, where because of the progressive nature of pneumoconiosis, more recent evidence is often accorded more weight. The most recent administrative law judge was presented with a new, more complete picture of Mr. Crace's health. His determination was supported by substantial evidence. Thus, the decision of the Benefits Review Board is AFFIRMED.