Opinion ID: 3009534
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: BethEnergy's Claims

Text: BethEnergy argues that it is entitled to a new hearing to respond to a change in the law that invalidated its rebuttal proof. It bases this assertion on two arguments. First, it claims that the Board violated its statutory authority by engaging in de novo fact finding. Second, it asserts that its due process rights were violated when the Board refused to reopen the record to afford it an opportunity to develop evidence to address new standards of proof regarding rebuttal under (b)(2) and (b)(3). Both arguments lack merit.
BethEnergy asserts that the Board overstepped its statutory authority by making factual findings regarding (b)(2) and (b)(3) rebuttal. In particular, it claims that because the ALJ found that Vrobel retained the pulmonary capacity to perform his usual coal mine work or comparable and gainful work, it had established (b)(2) rebuttal. Brief at 12. It then asserts that the Board engaged in fact finding in rejecting (b)(2) rebuttal. We reject this argument as it has no factual or legal support in the record. As the Director points out, the ALJ found that BethEnergy established (b)(2) rebuttal only in his initial Decision and Order. However, as the Director also notes, he reached this conclusion by applying the wrong rebuttal standard. After the Board remanded the case with instructions to apply the proper (b)(2) rebuttal standard in accordance with Kertesz, the ALJ specifically found that (b)(2) rebuttal was not established. App. at 58, 108. Furthermore, the Board never upset the finding by the ALJ concerning BethEnergy's lack of proof to establish (b)(2) rebuttal under the proper standard. BethEnergy also claims that the Board engaged in de novo fact finding when it reversed the ALJ's finding that BethEnergy established (b)(3) rebuttal. The argument is that once the Board determined that the ALJ applied the wrong standard on reconsideration the Board should have remanded the case to the ALJ with instructions to review the evidence under the correct standard. BethEnergy claims that the Board instead weighed the evidence de novo, and concluded that BethEnergy did not establish rebuttal under the post-Kertesz standards. In BethEnergy's view, these actions were beyond the Board's statutory powers, and, as such, warrant a remand of the case. The Director argues that the Board did not engage in de novo fact finding, but only reinstated the ALJ's initial findings made on remand. In particular, the Director claims that (b)(3) rebuttal was precluded because BethEnergy failed to establish that there was no significant relationship between the total disability and Vrobel's coal mine employment. App. at 109. In view of the parties' contentions we consider whether the Board engaged in de novo fact finding when it reversed the ALJ's decision regarding (b)(3) rebuttal. The Board's power to hear disputes concerning claims under the Black Lung Benefits Act is derived from 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(3), which provides: The Board shall be authorized to hear and determine appeals raising a substantial question of law or fact taken by any party in interest from decisions with respect to claims of employees under this chapter and the extensions thereof. (Emphasis supplied.) The statutory language has been interpreted to prohibit the Board from making a de novo factual review, Oravitz v. Director, OWCP, 738 F.2d at 739, instead requiring it to accept an ALJ's findings unless they are contrary to law, irrational, or unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. King v. Director, OWCP, 904 F.2d 17, 18 (9th Cir. 1990); Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Krecota, 868 F.2d 600, 603 (3d Cir. 1989). See also 20 C.F.R § 802.301. The proper (b)(3) rebuttal standard requires that the party opposing entitlement demonstrate that the miner's respiratory impairment was not a contributing cause of his total disability or did not aggravate his total disability. Carozza, 727 F.2d at 78. The Board determined that BethEnergy did not meet this standard. In reversing the ALJ, the Board acted within the scope of its delegated powers to make legal determinations because the decision of the ALJ on reconsideration on remand that BethEnergy established (b)(3) rebuttal as Vrobel did not have a totally disabling pulmonary or respiratory impairment was clearly contrary to law. BethEnergy argues that the case should have been remanded to the ALJ for a proper application of the Carozza standard. While the Board could have remanded the matter, we hardly can fault it for bringing these protracted proceedings to a close. Indeed, we followed a similar course in Sulyma v. Director, OWCP, 827 F.2d 922, 924 (3d Cir. 1987). In that case the Director conceded on appeal in this court that the claimant was entitled to the interim presumption of total disability denied in the administrative proceedings. However, the Director sought a remand of the case for consideration of whether the presumption had been rebutted. But we would not remand the case. Rather, in consideration of the age of the case, we relied on our own view of the record and concluded that the presumption had not been rebutted. Here, the Board took even less intrusive action as, rather than drawing factual conclusions, it accepted and applied the ALJ's previous factual finding, made under the correct legal standard. When the Board reversed the ALJ's determination that (b)(3) rebuttal had been established, it recognized that BethEnergy could not satisfy the Carozza requirement for (b)(3) rebuttal. It based this conclusion on the reasoning that because the ALJ determined that BethEnergy could not establish that there was no significant relationship between Vrobel's total disability and his coal mine employment, BethEnergy could not establish that the miner's pneumoconiosis was not a contributing cause of disability. App. at 37. We regard the Board's conclusion as logically unassailable. Indeed, the Board believed that it is easier to establish that there is no significant relationship between the total disability and the employment than it is to establish that pneumoconisis is not a contributing cause to the disability. We acknowledge that evaluation of medical evidence is entrusted to the ALJ. As we noted in Caprini v. Director, OWCP, 824 F.2d 283, 285 (3d Cir. 1987): [t]he ALJ should first have the opportunity to consider the evidence, make his ruling, and state his reasons. The Board may then consider the matter if the aggrieved party wishes to appeal. But the proceeding in this case fully comported with Caprini as the ALJ made the critical factual determinations on the basis of the record. Thus, a remand was not necessary as . . . the record [was] so clear that under the correct standard the result [was] foreordained. Id. See also Drummond Coal Co. v. Freeman, 17 F.3d 361 (11th Cir. 1994) (court of appeals may reinstate findings of ALJ overturned by Board); Sykes v. Director, OWCP, 812 F.2d 890 (4th Cir. 1987) (same). In order to justify a remand the Board would had to have concluded that the ALJ might deviate from his prior finding. The Board had no reason to reach such a conclusion.
BethEnergy asserts that due process of law requires that it be afforded an opportunity to develop evidence to address new standards of proof regarding rebuttal under (b)(2) and (b)(3). In this regard BethEnergy claims that our opinion in Kertesz on April 14, 1986, effectively changed the legal standard for establishing rebuttal under (b)(2) but that BethEnergy developed its medical evidence in 1983. We see no need for an extended discussion on this point as BethEnergy clearly had an opportunity to develop evidence under the Kertesz standard for we decided that case on April 14, 1986, and the initial hearing before the ALJ in this matter was on December 18, 1986. Furthermore, BethEnergy could have sought even more time under 20 C.F.R. § 725.454 to prepare its case but it did not do so. In these circumstances BethEnergy's due process argument is insubstantial. In reaching this conclusion we have not overlooked Marx v. Director, OWCP, 870 F.2d 114 (3d Cir. 1989), on which BethEnergy relies. But Marx is not helpful to BethEnergy. That case involved a situation in which a party presented her case in conformity with practice existing at the time of the hearing. However, following the hearing there was a change in the applicable law. In those circumstances we held that the claimant was entitled to a remand to have the opportunity to introduce evidence which satisfies [the new] standard. Thus, Marx does not support an argument that a litigant should be entitled to a remand to meet standards established before a hearing.