Opinion ID: 755187
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the plain meaning of the statutory language

Text: 10 In interpreting the requirements of the Black Lung Benefits Act,  'our starting point must be the language employed by Congress.'  Saginaw Mining Co., 818 F.2d at 1281 (quoting American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63, 68, 102 S.Ct. 1534, 71 L.Ed.2d 748 (1982) (quoting Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330, 337, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979))). Under the Act, within one year of a rejection of his or her claim, an individual can make a request for modification with the deputy commissioner. See 33 U.S.C. § 922, as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. § 932(a). The incorporated provisions of 33 U.S.C. § 922 give the deputy commissioner discretion to review such a request. In pertinent part, 33 U.S.C. § 922 provides: 11 [u]pon his own initiative, or upon the application of any party in interest, ... on the ground of a change in conditions or because of a mistake in a determination of fact by the deputy commissioner, the deputy commissioner may ... review a compensation case ... in accordance with the procedure prescribed in respect of claims in section 919.... 12 33 U.S.C. § 922. Once the deputy commissioner exercises his discretion to review such a claim, § 922 specifies that modification requests are to be reviewed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in respect of claims in [33 U.S.C. § 919]. 33 U.S.C. § 922; see also Saginaw Mining Co., 818 F.2d at 1281-82; accord 20 C.F.R. § 725.310(b) (Modification proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of [20 C.F.R. Part 725, setting forth the procedures for the adjudication of black lung claims] as appropriate.). The parties in a modification request, therefore, have the same § 919 procedural rights as they do with respect to the original claim. See Saginaw Mining Co., 818 F.2d at 1281-82. Thus, upon application of any interested party [the deputy commissioner] shall order a hearing thereon. 33 U.S.C. § 919(c), as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. § 932(a); see also Cunningham, 144 F.3d at 388; Pyro Mining Co. v. Slaton, 879 F.2d 187, 190 (6th Cir.1989) (holding that the statute gives parties a right to a hearing before an administrative law judge on all questions in respect of a claim). 13 33 U.S.C. § 919(d) provides that any hearing held shall be conducted by a[n] administrative law judge and shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of section 554 of Title 5. 2 Section 554(c)(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides for a hearing to be held in accordance with § 556. See also Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 96-97, 101 S.Ct. 999, 67 L.Ed.2d 69 (1981) (discussing §§ 554, 556). Section 556(d) provides that a party is entitled to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts, as well as the right to present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, [and] to submit rebuttal evidence. 5 U.S.C. § 556(d). Thus, there is a requirement that an ALJ hearing be conducted in-person, absent waiver or a proper grant of a motion for summary judgment.