Opinion ID: 503857
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Constitutionality of the Statutory Provision

Text: 28 Claimants also assert that if the statute permits the system set up by the regulations, then the statute is unconstitutional. They contend that the statute violates the Constitution's equal protection clause by treating class B claimants who choose DOL review and cannot prove a date of onset of disease differently from similarly situated class C claimants without any rational basis. We disagree, and hold that the statute is constitutionally sound. 29 The equal protection clause of the Constitution directs that 'all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.'  Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 2394, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982) (quoting F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415, 40 S.Ct. 560, 562, 64 L.Ed. 989 (1920)). When a statute fails to treat classes alike, it may constitute a violation of the equal protection clause. However, courts acknowledge the legislature's substantial latitude to establish classifications that roughly approximate the nature of the problem perceived, that accommodate competing concerns both public and private, and that account for limitations on the practical ability of the [federal government] to remedy every ill. Plyler, 457 U.S. at 216, 102 S.Ct. at 2394. Consequently, legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 440, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 3254, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). The deference accorded to legislative enactments is very great when economic or social legislation is at issue. Id. 19 30 In addition, we note that Congress' decision to give these claimants another chance to apply for benefits constitutes an act of legislative grace. The claimants had no contractual right to a second chance at benefits. This is another reason for adopting an extremely deferential approach when evaluating the statutory provision. See generally United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166, 177, 101 S.Ct. 453, 461, 66 L.Ed.2d 368 (1980). 31 In light of this standard we cannot say that the legislation is constitutionally infirm. It was reasonable for Congress to set limits on the award of retroactive benefits. The 1977 amendments, by reopening previously denied claims, greatly increased the cost of the black lung benefits program. See 126 Cong.Rec. H31,257 (daily ed. Dec. 1, 1980) (statement of Rep. Perkins). In addition, by shifting financial responsbility for reviewed class B claims from the federal government to coal mine operators, Congress greatly increased the already heavy financial burden being borne by the coal mining industry. See 126 Cong.Rec. H31,259 (daily ed. Dec. 1, 1980) (statement of Rep. Wampler). It is altogether possible that Congress wanted to minimize the burden the new legislation shifted to the coal mine operators in order to minimize the possibility of funding problems. 20 32 When there are economic limitations on Congress' ability to provide benefits, it is not constitutionally impermissible for Congress to have drawn lines between groups of employees concerning benefits, so long as there is a rational basis supporting the decision. Fritz, 449 U.S. at 177, 101 S.Ct. at 461. We feel that Congress had a sufficient basis for its decision to limit the amount of retroactive benefits awarded to class B claimants who elected DOL review and could not establish an onset date. Because the changes in evidentiary criteria were much more dramatic for class C than for class B claimants, Congress could have reasoned that class C claims were more likely to need to adjust their proof to fit the new rules than class B claimants. Class B claimants, on the other hand, were likely to introduce new evidence because, when they initially filed for benefits, they simply did not have sufficient evidence to support their claims. Accordingly, Congress might have decided that equitable reasons justified awarding retroactive benefits starting from 1974 for class C claimants who presented new evidence and could not prove an onset date but not for similarly situated class B claimants. 21 33 In addition, Congress apparently was concerned about the unfairness of imposing the financial burden for the class B claims on coal mine operators. See Bethlehem Mines Corp., 669 F.2d at 189; see also 126 Cong.Rec. H31,257-58 (daily ed. Dec. 1, 1980) (statement of Rep. Perkins). This was an additional cost not previously carried by the coal mining industry. Thus, Congress may have felt it necessary to limit the award of retroactive payments of class B claims to either the point at which the miner contracted the disease or the point at which the evidence ultimately used to prove the case became a part of the case. 34 We feel that, together, these reasons are more than adequate to support Congress' decision.