Opinion ID: 537072
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Real Purpose Behind Section 725.309(d)

Text: 25 The Board relies on section 725.309(d) to support its abolition of an ALJ hearing. However, the real purpose behind the statute was to open the door for subsequent claims. 26 When the duplicate claims regulation, section 725.309(d), was first proposed, it provided only that a later claim would be denied on the grounds of a prior denial unless the later claim was a request for modification meeting the requirement of 20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.310 (1989). 43 Fed.Reg. 17,743 (1978). Modification requests, however, can only be filed within one year of final denial of the earlier claim. Accordingly, a number of commentators pointed out that the proposed regulation did not sufficiently take into account the progressive nature of the disease. They explained that the proposed regulation would prohibit the filing of new claims by miners whose conditions have progressed to total disability. The Department therefore modified the language of section 725.309 to reflect its agreement that a miner whose claim has once been finally denied ... should be allowed to file a new claim on the grounds of a progression to total disability. Id. The current regulatory language was thus added to permit a new claim, even more than a year after a prior denial, if the deputy commissioner determines that there has been a material change in conditions. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.309(d) (1989). 27 This explanation makes clear that the sole purpose of section 725.309(d) was to provide relief from the ordinary principles of finality and res judicata to miners whose physical condition deteriorates. It follows that the Board is simply wrong in assuming, with no cited authority, that [t]he purpose of 20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.309(d) is to avoid the necessity of holding repeated full-blown hearings in previously denied claims and that its basis ... lies in the doctrine of res judicata. Benefits Review Board Decision and Order, March 30, 1988, at 3. The Secretary actually adopted the key regulatory language to permit, not to restrict, the filing of new claims that might otherwise be barred by res judicata. 28 The Board's misunderstanding of the purpose of section 725.309(d) caused it to attempt to achieve administrative efficiency rather than the intended remedial goal of providing miners with progressively worsening health full and equal access to black lung benefits. The real purpose of section 725.309(d) was to permit new claims to be filed even where modification under section 725.310(a) was no longer available because more than a year had passed since the first claim was denied. 29