Opinion ID: 665334
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Rebuttal under 20 C.F.R. Sec. 727.203(b)(2)

Text: 7 Paragraph (b)(2) of the regulation allows the employer to rebut the presumption of total disability by showing that [i]n light of all relevant evidence it is established that the claimant is able to do his usual coal mine work or comparable and gainful work. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 727.203(b)(2). We have observed that the proper inquiry under 20 C.F.R. Sec. 727.203(b)(2) seems to be whether any impairment prevented a miner from doing his usual job. Peabody, 906 F.2d at 269 (citing Wetherhill v. Director, OWCP, 812 F.2d 376, 379 (7th Cir.1987)) (emphasis in original). On remand from the Board, the ALJ noted the observations of Dr. Chiou on McRoy's black lung claim form that McRoy suffered from emphysema and mild to moderate restrictive lung disease. Dr. Chiou's report also stated that, as a result of these pulmonary impairments, McRoy was unable to engage in excessive walking or climbing. The ALJ next turned to McRoy's testimony concerning his coal mining duties, and found that McRoy's duties as a continuous coal mine operator required him to climb, walk, and engage in other heavy work requirements. The ALJ concluded that this testimony, coupled with Dr. Chiou's assessments of McRoy's emphysema and restrictive lung disease, sufficiently supported the inference that McRoy was unable to perform his usual coal mining duties. The ALJ further noted that none of Freeman's physicians found that McRoy was able to do his usual coal mine employment. As a result, the ALJ concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish rebuttal under Sec. 727.203(b)(2). 8 Freeman challenges the ALJ's finding that walking and climbing were an inherent part of McRoy's usual coal mining duties. However, it is the function of the ALJ to weigh the evidence and draw inferences from it; we, as a reviewing court, may not set aside an ALJ's factual determinations merely because we would draw an alternate inference or because we question the factual basis supporting the ALJ's inference. See Freeman United Coal Min. Co. Anderson, 973 F.2d 514, 517 (7th Cir.1992); Poole v. Freeman United Coal Min. Co., 897 F.2d 888, 893 (7th Cir.1990). McRoy testified before the ALJ that his last years at Freeman were spent operating a continuous coal miner (apparently some type of coal extracting machinery although the record does not make this clear). In response to the ALJ's questions, McRoy testified that, despite the seemingly stationary nature of this job, under the right conditions, even this job required the ability to engage in fast walking. Tr. at 30-31. McRoy also testified that this job would occasionally require climbing, usually around other machinery. Id. at 31. While by no means overwhelming, the testimony met the substantial evidence test and supported the ALJ's determination that McRoy's usual duties at Freeman required him to engage in excessive walking and climbing. 9 Freeman also criticizes the ALJ for exclusively relying upon the medical report of Dr. Chiou in determining that McRoy suffered from a pulmonary impairment which rendered him unable to perform his usual coal mining duties. This mischaracterizes the ALJ's analysis. The ALJ considered not only the report of Dr. Chiou, but also the reports of Freeman's doctors, most notably Dr. Campbell and Dr. Helmy, in making his determination. The ALJ discussed a report of Dr. Helmy, submitted by Freeman post-hearing, in which Dr. Helmy reported McRoy's lungs as clear with no significant pulmonary abnormality. This report, however, says nothing about the absence of a pulmonary impairment, nor whether McRoy is able to perform his usual coal mine work or comparable activities. The report therefore has no evidentiary significance in rebutting the report of Dr. Chiou. 10 The ALJ devoted considerable time to Dr. Campbell's report, apparently because it was the most comprehensive. Dr. Campbell reported that McRoy could walk between three to four blocks carrying a light load of groceries, and could climb one flight of stairs without stopping. He reported normal chest x-rays with no objective evidence of coal miner's pneumoconiosis, and possible angina pectoris. Dr. Campbell noted, however, that since he was unable to successfully conduct a pulmonary exercise test, he could not accurately quantify the extent of any possible ventilatory impairment. The ALJ correctly noted that, due to this inability to quantify McRoy's pulmonary condition, Dr. Campbell's report deserved little to no weight in rebutting any of the pulmonary impairments noted in the report of Dr. Chiou. Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ acted rationally and within the permissible bounds of his discretion in determining that Dr. Campbell's opinions were too equivocal for the purposes of rebuttal under Sec. 727.203(b)(2). 11 More importantly, since none of Freeman's retained physicians found that McRoy was able to perform his usual work, it was understandable, and thus rational, for the ALJ to assign these reports little probative value in determining whether rebuttal was established under Sec. 727.203(b)(2). Freeman has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence, see Amax Coal Co. v. Beasley, 957 F.2d 324, 327, 328 (7th Cir.1992), that despite any impairments McRoy was still able to perform his usual or comparable work. Freeman failed to put forward the rebuttal evidence necessary under Sec. 727.203(b)(2) and therefore cannot now complain that the ALJ disregarded the evidence. 12