Opinion ID: 603139
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Ventilatory Studies

Text: 7 The ALJ found that the preponderance of the evidence weighed against invoking the presumption under (a)(2). First, the ALJ reasoned, the one qualifying ventilatory study was followed by four nonqualifying studies. Applying the later evidence is better rationale, the ALJ discredited the one qualifying study. The use of the later evidence is better rule was limited by this Court in Adkins v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 958 F.2d 49, 51-52 (4th Cir. 1992). We therefore exclude this rationale as a basis for the ALJ's decision. 8 However, there are still ample grounds to support the ALJ's decision that the presumption should not be invoked. First, as the ALJ stated, ventilatory studies are effort dependent. Because the effort Stanley expended in the qualifying study was less than the effort he expended in all the non-qualifying studies, the qualifying study is less credible than the other studies. This is not the type of thoughtless invocation of higher numbers are more credible decried by this Court in Greer v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 940 F.2d 88, 90-91 (4th Cir. 1991). Rather, the ALJ pointed to an objective reason why the higher numbers here were more credible. Further, the ALJ's finding that one qualifying study could not rise to a level of preponderance over five non-qualifying studies was amply supported by substantial evidence. His decision must be upheld.