Opinion ID: 665334
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rebuttal under Sec. 727.203(b)(4).

Text: 13 An employer can establish rebuttal under paragraph (b)(4) if it can show that the claimant does not, or did not, have pneumoconiosis. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 727.203(b)(4). Pneumoconiosis encompasses not only clinical pneumoconiosis as defined by the medical community but also statutory pneumoconiosis as more broadly defined by the Act and the regulations. See Chastain v. Freeman United Coal Min. Co., 919 F.2d 485, 488 (7th Cir.1990). Under the regulations, pneumoconiosis is defined as a respiratory [or] pulmonary impairment[ ], arising out of coal mine employment. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 727.202. For purposes of this regulation, a respiratory or pulmonary impairment arising out of coal mine employment is one that is significantly related to, or aggravated by, dust exposure in coal mine employment. Id. The ALJ found that since none of Freeman's physicians reported that McRoy's respiratory impairments resulted from other factors, such as his two to three pack-a-day cigarette habit as compared to dust exposure in his coal mine employment, Freeman failed to establish rebuttal under Sec. 727.203(b)(4). 14 Freeman argues that other x-ray, blood gas and pulmonary study evidence, along with Dr. Campbell's opinion that McRoy did not have clinical pneumoconiosis, all demonstrate that the ALJ's finding of no rebuttal under (b)(4) is not supported by substantial evidence. But Freeman is simply arguing the absence of clinical pneumoconiosis. In order to establish rebuttal under (b)(4), it was also necessary for Freeman to disprove the presumptively causal relation between McRoy's respiratory or pulmonary impairments and his coal dust exposure--that is, the absence of statutory pneumoconiosis. See Chastain, 919 F.2d at 488-89. This Freeman failed to do. 2 Therefore, the ALJ was correct in determining that Freeman's evidence was insufficient to establish rebuttal under (b)(4).