Opinion ID: 2975340
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Complete Pulmonary Evaluation

Text: Claimant advances the position that if the ALJ’s rejection of the DOL-sponsored opinion of Dr. Baker was indeed proper, then this Court must order a remand because the DOL had not discharged its obligation to provide him with a “complete pulmonary evaluation.” We find a remand unnecessary here because Claimant did receive a complete pulmonary evaluation in compliance with DOL regulations. DOL regulations provide that each claimant is entitled to a “complete pulmonary evaluation” sponsored by the DOL: “The Act requires the [DOL] to provide each miner who applies for benefits with the opportunity to undergo a complete pulmonary evaluation at no expense to the miner. A complete pulmonary evaluation includes a report of physical examination, a pulmonary function study, a chest roentgenogram and, unless medically contraindicated, a blood gas study.” 20 C.F.R. § 725.406(a); see also 30 U.S.C. §923(b), 20 C.F.R. §§ 718.101(a), 718.401, 725.406(b). Claimant does not allege that he did not receive any of these tests and concedes that Dr. Baker’s report was documented by “a chest x-ray, pulmonary function studies, physical examination and arterial blood gas studies.” Rather, he argues that his examination report was deficient because the ALJ failed to assign controlling weight to the DOL-sponsored physician’s opinion, and he is therefore entitled to a remand for further medical evaluation and adjudication. However, that is not the standard. In order for the examination report to satisfy the DOL’s obligations under the Act and regulations, the DOL must provide a medical opinion that addresses all of the essential elements of entitlement. See Gallaher v. Bellaire Corp., No. 03-3066, 2003 WL 21801463, at  (6th Cir. Aug. 4, 2003) -8- (unpublished case) (“Where a doctor’s examination report provided by the Department does not address an essential element of entitlement, the Department has been found to have failed to satisfy this obligation.”) (citing Cline v. Director, OWCP, 917 F.2d 9, 11 (8th Cir. 1990)). Keith v. Director, OWCP, No. 92-3433, 1992 WL 349292 (6th Cir. Nov. 25, 1992) (unpublished case) is analogous, and involves the same Dr. Baker. In Keith, the Director argued for a remand on the basis that Dr. Baker failed to address the element of whether the claimant was totally disabled. Id. at . However, we found that Dr. Baker addressed the disability element on the DOL medical history examination form, in response to a question which asked for the physician’s medical assessment of the claimant’s degree of severity of impairment. Id. at . Dr. Baker’s written response was “mild or minimal.” Id. We held that while more detail could have been provided, the “lack of [a] more detailed explanation does not render Dr. Baker’s report inadequate in fulfilling the DOL’s obligation to provide [the claimant] with a full pulmonary examination and report.” Id. The Keith Court further distinguished the cases of Newman v. Director, OWCP, 745 F.2d 1162 (8th Cir. 1984) (per curiam) (remand ordered because DOL-sponsored physician failed to perform the necessary testing) and Johnson v. Director, OWCP, No. 89-3211, 1989 WL 144348 (6th