Opinion ID: 503857
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Validity of the Administrative Regulation

Text: 17 We must first determine what standard of review to apply to the regulations. We agree with the Director that, in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), the Supreme Court established the set of guidelines that governs our analysis. In Chevron, the Supreme Court instructed courts to conduct a two-part analysis when considering an agency's construction of the statute that it administers. First, the court must determine whether the statute itself answers the particular question. If the statute addresses the issue, then the court must simply make sure that the agency has given effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. Id. at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. at 2781-82 (footnote omitted). If there is no discussion of the precise issue within the statute, the court must ask a second question: Does the regulation constitute a permissible construction of the statute? Id. at 843, 104 S.Ct. at 2782. In evaluating the agency's stance, [t]he court need not conclude that the agency construction was the only one it permissibly could have adopted to uphold the construction, or even the reading the court would have reached if the question initially had arisen in a judicial proceeding. Id. at 843 n. 11, 104 S.Ct. at 2782 n. 11. 18 As we previously noted, the statute does not establish a starting date for payments that are awarded under 30 U.S.C. Sec. 945 (1982). The only absolute guideline is that these payments shall not date back prior to January 1, 1974. Thus, under Chevron, we must determine whether the challenged regulation reasonably construes the statute.
19 Unquestionably, whenever any claimant can establish the date of onset, the retroactive benefits begin at that date. 15 When the date of onset cannot be established, payments have traditionally started from the filing date. See Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co., 678 F.2d 17, 20 n. 6 (3rd Cir.1982) (citing 20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.503(d) (1977)). Claimants Curse and New note that all class B claims were filed before 1974, the statutory cutoff date for retroactive payments. To be consistent with the legislature's mandate, they state, class B claimants who cannot establish a date of onset should receive benefits dating back to January 1, 1974. 20 We do not have to determine whether a regulation providing the suggested scheme would conform to the Act's general directives. We must only decide whether the system in existence is consistent with the Act. And, we find that the regulation does conform to the Act. As the Director reasons, these class B claimants, by electing to have their claims reconsidered, have essentially refiled their claims. They have the ability to present new evidence to establish their eligibility and, in general, are treated as class C claimants. See 30 U.S.C. Sec. 945(a)(1)(B) (1982). One provision of the statute expressly states that [f]or the purposes of any determination by the Secretary of Labor under paragraph (3) [, which deals with class B claims reviewed by the DOL,] the date of [election] shall be considered the date of filing of the claim. 30 U.S.C. Sec. 945(a)(4) (1982). We agree with the Director that this strongly indicates Congress' intent to treat these class B claims as having been refiled at the date of DOL election. It is obvious, then, that the regulatory scheme is consistent with both the Act and the traditional rule starting black lung benefit payments from the filing date when there is no ascertainable onset date. 21 In addition, legislative history supports the Director's position that the regulation as written most effectively carries out the statute's purpose. The legislative history shows that, in those cases in which class B claimants elected DOL review and presented new evidence to prove their eligibility, Congress viewed the claims as refiled. See H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 864, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 21, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 237, 314 (claimants can elect to have HEW review the claim on the existing record or have the claim referred to the Department of Labor for refiling under part C with an opportunity to submit new evidence) (emphasis added). The report describes class C claims, on the other hand, as reviewed claims. Id. We feel that this distinction is significant, especially in light of the statute's provision that class B claims considered by the DOL are deemed to have been filed on the date of election. 16 22 We also note that, shortly after the Labor Department wrote the regulations, some members of the House Committee on Education and Labor sent the Department of Labor detailed comments about the regulations. The Congressmen critiqued the regulation at issue in this case, and expressed some concern over the rule. Their criticism, however, stemmed from the fear that because the regulation did not emphasize the importance of the onset date, the department would not work hard enough to discover that date. Therefore, they feared that eligible claimants would not always receive their full share of retroactive benefits. 17 This critique does not disapprove of the election date cutoff so long as the department makes an effort to discover the actual onset date. 18 23 Claimants argue that various statements appearing in the legislative history of the 1977 amendments show that Congress wanted all claimants unable to establish an onset date to receive benefits dating back to January 1, 1974. See Brief of Petitioners, at 19-22. We have carefully considered the statements to which claimants refer, however, and we do not find them persuasive. 24 In addition, we reject claimants' argument that because part of the purpose of the 1977 amendments is to equalize treatment of the two classes, the regulation providing for different, less favorable treatment of class B claimants conflicts with the statute. Congress has statutorily set up different systems to govern class B and class C claims. Class B claims are evaluated by the SSA, while class C claims are reviewed by the DOL. Federal funds finance the payments of class B benefits, while state workers' compensation programs and the coal mining industry bear the responsibility for paying class C claims. Most significantly, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 945 (1982), which provides for the review of previously denied black lung claims, distinguishes between class B and class C claims. Class C claims automatically receive review, and claimants automatically may present new evidence to substantiate their claims. 30 U.S.C. Sec. 945(b) (1982); see Old Ben Coal Co. v. Luker, 826 F.2d 688, 693 (7th Cir.1987). However, class B claimants must affirmatively elect review by either the HHS or the DOL, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 945(a)(1) (1982); if they fail to do so, they waive their right to review. See Old Ben Coal Co., 826 F.2d at 693. It is clear that, although Congress intended to provide all claimants with equally liberal medical criteria and evidentiary rules, it did not mean to abolish all distinctions between the two groups. Therefore, a regulation distinguishing between the two classes in some manner is not automatically irreconcilable with the Act. 25 Finally, we are not persuaded by claimants' argument that, by mandating that retroactive payments shall be awarded, the statute precludes the regulations at issue. The statute does not order that all claimants receive benefits dating back to January 1, 1974 in all cases. Instead, it unambiguously establishes January 1, 1974 as the cutoff date before which no benefits shall be awarded. 30 U.S.C. Sec. 945(c) (1982). The provision, therefore, lends virtually no support to claimants' case. 26 Thus, we conclude that the regulations represented a reasonable interpretation of the statute. 27