Opinion ID: 3009982
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether Deference is Appropriate

Text: Beatty's final contention is that the Director's position is not entitled to deference. To support this position, Beatty advances four arguments. First, Beatty argues that because the Director is merely a delegatee of the Secretary, the Secretary's interpretation must prevail over the Director's if the two are in conflict. He cites Elliot Coal Mining Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Program, 17 F.3d 616, 627 (3d Cir. 1994), in support of this proposition. Unfortunately for Beatty, he fails to demonstrate any conflict between the Director's position and that of the Secretary. Beatty argues that the Part 718 regulations (i.e., (..continued) resolution of the case before us when it commented that [w]ithout a doubt, a miner seeking benefits must show that he is totally disabled not merely by a respiratory or pulmonary condition but by pneumoconiosis. Bonessa, 884 F.2d at 729. Implicit in the Court's statement is the conclusion that it is the universe of respiratory or pulmonary impairments that is at issue in determining whether the miner is totally disabled, not the universe of all physical impairments. the Secretary's regulations), embody a full contribution standard and therefore the Director's interpretation of these regulations is in conflict with the Secretary's interpretation. As we have explained, however, Beatty has not demonstrated that the Part 718 regulations embody a full contribution standard. Accordingly, Beatty's first argument against according the Director deference is fatally flawed. Beatty's next argument is that deference to an administrative agency's construction of a statute is inappropriate if a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, is able to discern Congress' intent in enacting the measure. For this proposition, Beatty cites Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 446, 107 S. Ct. 1207, 1221 (1987). Beatty claims that the statutory text itself permits the Court to decide the question of the appropriate standard. Once again, however, Beatty's argument is fatally flawed. As we have previously determined, the text of the Act does not unambiguously embrace a full contribution standard. We are not able to discern Congress' precise intent from the language presented to us in the Act. Accordingly, Beatty's argument cannot succeed. Beatty's third argument is that the Senate Committee report accompanying the 1977 Reform Act, in discussing its understanding of total disability under the Act, expressed the expectation that the Secretary of Labor will promulgate standards which give the benefit of any doubt to the coal miner. S. Rep. No. 209, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 13 (1977). Further, Beatty argues that the agency itself assumed this obligation by incorporating this expectation into its regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 718.3(c) (1993). Both the full contribution standard urged by Beatty and the limited contribution standard urged by the Director allow impairments other than pneumoconiosis or its sequelae to be counted toward the definition of total disability. Admittedly, Beatty's position is more generous toward miners than that of the Director. We do not think, however, that the Director runs afoul of his duty of establishing regulations which give the benefit of the doubt to the claimants by promulgating and implementing regulations that place some limits on the kinds of impairments that a claimant can count towards establishing a total disability. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Beatty's argument. Beatty's final argument is that the Director's current reading of the statute and the Part 718 regulations is inconsistent with her prior constructions and is merely expressed in a litigating position. Beatty argues that under such circumstances it is inappropriate to accord the Director deference. Beatty cites Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 212-13, 109 S. Ct. 468, 473-474 (1988), in support of his position. Beatty has not demonstrated any inconsistency in the position taken by the Director concerning the current Department of Labor regulations. At best, Beatty can demonstrate some inconsistency between the interpretation of DOL's permanent regulations and its interim regulations. As previously discussed, however, the interim regulations do not concern us here. Accordingly, we are unpersuaded by Beatty's argument that the Director's position is not entitled to deference.