Opinion ID: 2818452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rebuttal of the 15-Year Presumption

Text: The ALJ’s Decision Premium Coal’s experts, Drs. Tuteur and Rosenberg, opined that Byrge’s respiratory impairment was related to a condition called “bronchiectasis,” which they opined was caused by Byrge’s rheumatoid arthritis. Dr. Tuteur explained that bronchiectasis “develops following recurrent lower respiratory infections and becomes irreversible because of the anatomical destruction of the medium size airways often extending to smaller airways.” Dr. Rosenberg opined that Byrge’s severe pulmonary problems were “related to his bronchiectasis caused by rheumatoid arthritis, not by [Byrge’s] exposure to coal dust.” Dr. Tuteur opined that Byrge’s bronchiectasis “though disabiling [sic], is in no way related to, aggravated by, or caused by either the inhalation of coal mine dust or the development of coal mine dust-induced pulmonary process.” Case No. 14-3719 9 Premium Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP The ALJ accepted as true the experts’ claim that Byrge had rheumatoid arthritis and bronchiectasis. The ALJ rejected the experts’ conclusion that Byrge’s bronchiectasis was not caused or aggravated by mining exposure because “neither proved that bronchiectasis is mutually exclusive with the lung impairments referenced by the definition of legal pneumoconiosis. Neither account[s] for the 15 years of mining exposure. Neither [has] presented a reasoned basis [for] how the 15 years of mining exposure precluded aggravation of rheumatoid arthritis and bronchiectasis.” The Board upheld the ALJ’s decision noting that the ALJ provided a valid reason for discrediting the experts’ opinions and concluding that Premium Coal failed to rebut the presumption that Byrge had legal pneumoconiosis. Legal Analysis As noted above, Premium Coal could rebut the 15-year presumption if it: (1) disproved the existence of pneumoconiosis; or (2) showed that the miner’s “respiratory or pulmonary impairment did not arise out of, or in connection with, employment in a coal mine.” 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4); see also 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(d). Premium Coal argues that it is entitled to a third avenue of rebuttal under Arch on the Green, Inc. v. Groves, 761 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2014) – rebuttal through proof that Byrge’s pneumoconiosis was not a “substantially contributing cause” of his disability but that such disability was due to a non-compensable condition such as Byrge’s arthritis.3 3 Premium Coal also argues that Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1 (1976) limits 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4)’s application to operators such as Premium Coal. We have previously rejected such argument. See Big Branch Resources, Inc. v. Ogle, 737 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (6th Cir. 2013); see also W. Virginia CWP Fund v. Bender, No. 12-2034, 2015 WL 1475069, at  (4th Cir. Apr. 2, 2015). Case No. 14-3719 10 Premium Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP The “substantially contributing cause” standard is the appropriate standard to prove disease causation (proof that the miner’s pneumoconiosis is a “substantially contributing cause” of his total disability) when the burden of proof is on the miner. Arch on the Green, 761 F.3d at 600-01. In Arch on the Green, the miner failed to invoke the 15-year presumption so the burden was on him to establish entitlement to benefits. Because Byrge properly invoked the 15-year presumption, we have held that the “ruleout” standard applies – “the employer must rule out the causal relationship between the miner’s total disability and his coal mine employment” to rebut the 15-year presumption. Big Branch Resources, Inc. v. Ogle, 737 F.3d 1063, 1070-71 (6th Cir. 2013). In Big Branch an insurance fund for a defunct coal mine operator challenged the award of BLBA benefits to a coal miner. The fund argued that the ALJ erred in requiring the fund to prove that the claimant’s coal mine employment played no part in causing his total disability. Id. at 1071. We rejected such argument noting that: Simply put, the “play no part” or “rule-out” standard and the “contributing cause” standard are two sides of the same coin. Where the burden is on the employer to disprove a presumption, the employer must “rule-out” coal mine employment as a cause of the disability. Where the employee must affirmatively prove causation, he must do so by showing that his occupational coal dust exposure was a contributing cause of his disability. Because the burden here is on the Fund, the Fund must show that the coal mine employment played no part in causing the total disability . . . This approach follows and applies the language found in 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(d). Id. (emphasis in the original). Because the 15-year presumption applied in this case, it was not an error for the ALJ to require Premium Coal to “rule out” that Byrge’s coal mine employment aggravated his disability. See Brandywine, 2015 WL 3649540, at ; Case No. 14-3719 11 Premium Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP see also W. Virginia CWP Fund v. Bender, No. 12-2034, 2015 WL 1475069, at  (4th Cir. Apr. 2, 2015) (upholding 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(d) as a valid regulation and noting that “any ‘party opposing entitlement’ to black lung benefits, including coal mine operators, may rebut the statutory presumption of disability under subsection (d)(1)(ii) of the regulation only by proving that ‘no part of the miner's respiratory or pulmonary total disability was caused by pneumoconiosis.’”) Premium Coal also argues that it should have been allowed to rebut the 15-year presumption with evidence that Byrge’s pneumoconiosis was too mild to have contributed to his total disability. The fund in Big Branch made a similar claim when it argued that the ALJ improperly restricted its ability to rebut the 15-year presumption by not allowing it to prove that the claimant’s pneumoconiosis was “mild and that the totally disabling respiratory impairment [was] the product of another disease.” Id. at 1070. We held that such evidence was “not a unique third rebuttal method, but merely a specific way to attack the second link in the causal chain—that pneumoconiosis caused total disability. Nothing in the record suggests that the Fund was prevented from making this argument.” Id. The same is true in this case. Premium Coal was allowed to present evidence that Byrge’s arthritis was the cause of his respiratory problems. Unfortunately for Premium Coal, the ALJ ruled that such evidence did not rebut the 15-year presumption because neither expert’s opinion addressed how bronchiectasis was mutually exclusive with the lung impairments referenced in the definition of legal pneumoconiosis, neither Case No. 14-3719 12 Premium Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP opinion accounted for Byrge’s 15 years of coal mine work, and neither opinion gave a reasoned basis for concluding that Byrge’s 15 years of mining exposure did not aggravate his rheumatoid arthritis and bronchiectasis. See Brandywine, 2015 WL 3649540, at . Premium Coal’s petition is DENIED.