Opinion ID: 522218
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does a Night Watchman Qualify as a Miner?

Text: 25 Section 402(d) of the Black Lung Benefits Act defines miner as any individual who works or has worked in or around a coal mine or coal preparation facility in the extraction or preparation of coal. 4 30 U.S.C. Sec. 902(d). The regulations also provide that in order to qualify as a miner, an individual must have worked in or around a coal mine or coal preparation plant and must have been involved in the extraction or preparation of coal. 20 C.F.R. Secs. 725.101(a)(26), 5 725.202(a). 6 26 The Board and the courts have generally interpreted the statutory definition of miner to encompass a two-pronged test. To qualify as a miner, an individual must establish that: (1) he worked in or around a statutorily defined coal mine (the situs test), 30 U.S.C. Sec. 802(h)(2), and (2) his duties involved the extraction or preparation of coal, or involved appropriate coal mine construction or transportation (the function test). Foreman v. Director, OWCP, 794 F.2d 569, 570 (11th Cir.1986); Wisor v. Director, OWCP, 748 F.2d 176, 178 (3d Cir.1984); Southard v. Director, OWCP, 732 F.2d 66, 69 (6th Cir.1984); Amigo Smokeless Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP, 642 F.2d 68, 70 (4th Cir.1981). The parties agree that the situs test has been met here, but dispute strongly whether work as a night watchman satisfies the function test. 27 Clemons does not claim to have been involved in construction or transportation, and did not engage in activity falling within the statutory definition of preparation. 7 To qualify under the explicit terms of the Act, therefore, Clemons must have been involved in the extraction of coal. 28 Extraction is not defined in either the regulations or the Act. Thus, the term should be given its ordinary and plain meaning. See Mills Music, Inc. v. Snyder, 469 U.S. 153, 164, 105 S.Ct. 638, 645, 83 L.Ed.2d 556 (1985). According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 403 (1981), extract means to draw forth or to pull or take out forcibly. We do not find that Clemons' work involved extraction as that term is commonly employed because he was not involved sufficiently in the taking out of coal or in mining coal. 29 Although the statutory language itself is restrictive, Wisor v. Director, OWCP, 748 F.2d 176, 178 (3d Cir.1984), remedial legislation, such as the Black Lung Benefits Act, should be construed broadly. Stroh v. Director, OWCP, 810 F.2d 61, 64 (3d Cir.1987); Adelsberger v. Mathews, 543 F.2d 82, 84 (7th Cir.1976). Although workers performing duties incidental to the extraction or preparation of coal have met the function requirement and have been considered to be coal miners, these incidental duties must be an integral or necessary part of the coal mining process. 30 In Stroh v. Director, OWCP, 810 F.2d 61 (3d Cir.1987), a self-employed trucker loaded coal at the mine site, hauled raw coal over public roads to processing plants, and frequently worked underground. He was determined to be a miner eligible for black lung benefits because of his incidental duties. 31 In Southard v. Director, OWCP, 732 F.2d 66 (6th Cir.1984), a coal retailer who unloaded coal from railroad cars onto trucks was held not to be a miner because he failed the function prong of the definition. 32 In Hon v. Director, OWCP, 699 F.2d 441 (8th Cir.1983), the court held that work in a blacksmith's shop did not constitute work as a miner. In Skipper v. Mathews, 448 F.Supp. 300, 302 (M.D.Pa.1977), however, the court stated that even though work performed in the repair shop did not involve the extraction of coal, [i]t was, however, part of the overall process because coal cannot be extracted without properly functioning equipment. See also Amigo Smokeless Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP, 642 F.2d 68 (4th Cir.1981) (holding that a lab technician who collected coal samples for processing and analysis was a miner because collection work constitutes preparation and because chemical analysis is a necessary step in preparing coal for sale). 33 In Frost v. Benefits Review Bd., No. 85-4034, 821 F.2d 649 (6th Cir. June 26, 1987) (unpublished), a deliveryman who carried lunches to the underground workers was not a miner. The court held that 34 [w]hile the mineworkers obviously had to eat, and it was convenient to have someone bring the lunches to the workers, it was not necessary to have the lunches delivered into the mine. This case is simply not like [others] where the incidental duties were more closely related and necessary to the actual process of extracting or preparing coal. Frost's duties were too far removed from the extraction or preparation process to be considered qualifying coal mine employment. Slip op. at 12 (emphasis added). 8 35 In general, those individuals who handle raw coal or who perform tasks necessary to keep the mine operational and in repair are generally classified as miners. Those whose tasks are merely convenient but not vital or essential to production and/or extraction are generally not classified as miners. 36 We find three cases that have considered specifically whether a security guard or night watchman qualifies as a miner. All held that such duties do not encompass the job of miner. Director, OWCP v. West Virginia Workers' Compensation Coal-Workers' Pneumoconiosis Fund; Henry J. Lambert, No. 86-1222, 842 F.2d 1290 (4th Cir. Mar. 8, 1988) (unpublished); Slone v. Director, OWCP, 12 Black Lung Rptr. 1-92 (BRB 1988); Joyce v. Director, OWCP, BRB No. 80-1542 BLA (June 15, 1984) (unpublished). 37 In Lambert, the claimant worked as a line-shack night-watchman, providing on-site security for coal mining supplies and equipment cached outside the mine entrance, near the tipple. Slip op. at 2. Although the claimant worked the night shift, the mine was operating and he was exposed to coal dust. The ALJ, the Benefits Review Board, and the Fourth Circuit all concluded that the claimant was not a miner under the statutory definition. The court held: 38 In determining whether claimant was a miner, all three members of the Board agreed that duties as a line-shack nightwatchman fell outside the statutory and regulatory definitions. In applying the function test, the Board agreed unanimously that sitting in a line-shack and watching non-operating equipment was not the equivalent of performing duties integral to coal preparation and extraction. 39 Id. at 6. 40 In Slone, the Board held that the claimant's employment as a night watchman was not qualifying coal mine employment under the Act. 12 Black Lung Rptr. at 1-93. Its decision was based on the claimant's testimony that he mostly stayed in the trailer and took care of telephone calls coming in, checking tickets going out, and the ALJ's conclusion that the claimant was hired to protect and further the commercial interests of his employer and, therefore, his duties were not integral to the coal production process. Id. In short, claimant did not meet the function test of the statutory definition of miner. 41 In Joyce, the Board summarily rejected the claimant's contention that his work as a security guard constituted qualifying coal mine employment. According to the Board, The administrative law judge could properly find that claimant's duties as a mine security guard were not integral to the preparation or extraction of coal. Slip op. at 2. 42 We are in agreement with the rationale of these three security guard cases even though two are unpublished. We conclude that Clemons' work as a security guard while at Falcon does not qualify him as a miner under the Act. 9 A review of the statute, the applicable regulations, and the case law reveals that Clemons, in his capacity of night watchman, did not perform duties integral to the extraction of coal. We agree with the dissent of Chief Administrative Appeals Judge Ramsey: 43 In one sense or another, each and every employee of a coal mine operation can be said to be essential or integral to the extraction of coal. If not, common sense would dictate that they would not be retained on the company payroll.... We cannot say, however, that since all employees may be essential to some aspect or other of the overall operation, that they all qualify as miners. 44 Joint Appendix at 5 (en banc ). Although Clemons may have been convenient or helpful to Falcon's operation, he was not necessary to procure coal. Falcon might just as well have installed alarms or other security devices instead of hiring a security guard, because the type of security system used does not affect extraction methods at the mine. 45 Because the number of years Clemons actually worked in or about coal mines as a miner, is less than ten, the ALJ's invocation of the interim presumption was improper. Accordingly, Clemons, rather than Falcon, should bear the burden of proving that his disability arose out of coal mine employment. 20 C.F.R. Secs. 727.203(c), (d), 718.204. 46 Furthermore, because work as a night watchman is nonqualifying work, Clemons was not a miner during his tenure at Falcon. Falcon therefore cannot be held responsible for the payment of any black lung benefits Clemons ultimately may be awarded. See Zavora v. United States Steel Corp., 2 BLR 1-1202, 1-1209 to -1210 (holding that an employer who did not employ an individual as a miner is not liable for the payment of benefits under the Act). Because Clemons only work as a miner occurred, if at all, prior to 1970, the Black Lung Disability Trust must provide any benefits that may be payable. 30 U.S.C. Secs. 932(c), 934(a). 47