Opinion ID: 2734153
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fourth Agency Decisions

Text: Antelope argues the fourth ALJ decision was insufficient for three reasons. First, Antelope suggests the ALJ inadequately explained his decision. But “[i]f a reviewing court can discern what the ALJ did and why he did it, the duty of explanation is satisfied.” Gunderson v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 601 F.3d 1013, 1022 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have had no trouble discerning what the agency did and why it did it; “[b]oth the Board and the ALJ have shown their work,” Energy W. Mining Co., 555 F.3d at 1219. Second, Antelope contends the ALJ failed to resolve disability causation under § 718.204, asserting he did not find that Mrs. Goddard had shown pneumoconiosis to be a material or substantial contributing cause to the totally disabling pulmonary impairment. The Review Board held, however, any error in not making a more - 13 - specific § 718.204(c) finding was harmless because the ALJ’s analysis under § 718.202(a)(4) also “encompassed the issue of disability causation” under § 718.204(c). 11/27/2013 Rev. Bd. Dec. at 8. Antelope does not take issue with the Review Board’s determination of harmless error, and we agree with the Review Board that no remand is required, because the ALJ effectively resolved the issue of disability causation when he found legal pneumoconiosis. See Andersen, 455 F.3d at 1105 (stating that a claimant establishes legal pneumoconiosis only by proving that his respiratory condition “is significantly related to, or substantially aggravated by, dust exposure in coal mine employment” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Third, Antelope asserts the ALJ’s analysis of the medical opinions is impermissibly selective and unsupported by substantial evidence. We have reviewed each of Antelope’s specific contentions with regard to this argument and conclude that none of them compel us to vacate the agency decision. “Our task is to determine whether the Board properly concluded that the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.” Energy W. Mining Co., 555 F.3d at 1217 (internal quotation marks omitted). We agree with the Review Board that, at a minimum, Dr. Perper’s opinion constitutes substantial evidence to support the decision. In large part, Antelope’s arguments are based on disagreements with the ALJ’s assessment of the evidence. “However, in deciding whether substantial evidence exists to support the ALJ’s decision, the court cannot reweigh the evidence, but may only inquire into the existence of evidence to support the trier of fact.” - 14 - N. Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 100 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, this record presents a conflict of medical opinions, and “[w]e are especially mindful that the task of weighing conflicting medical evidence is within the sole province of the ALJ and that where medical professionals are in disagreement, the trier of fact is in a unique position to determine credibility and weigh the evidence.” Energy W. Mining Co., 555 F.3d at 1217 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).