Opinion ID: 217821
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Justice Under the Act

Text: Mrs. Crowe next contends that the ALJ erred in concluding that modification would serve justice under the Act. Specifically, she avers that the employer behaved improperly in refusing to pay benefits under the final award. Further, she contends that the ALJ's decision was capricious because the ALJ already had concluded, at earlier stages in the proceeding, that the employer had failed to act with diligence. [14] As we have noted, the statute vests an ALJ with broad discretion in modification proceedings. That discretion is cabined by the requirement that modification must serve justice under the Act. O'Keeffe, 404 U.S. at 255, 256, 92 S.Ct. 405. As we also have noted, that principle is tied to the Act's preference for accuracy above finality in most circumstances. Although an ALJ is entitled, in various circumstances, to conclude that a party's conduct is such that a modification in its favor is improper, see Hilliard, 292 F.3d at 547, Mrs. Crowe has not invited our attention to any case in which we have required such a conclusion. It is important to remember the posture at which this question arises in this case. The ALJ in the modification proceedings had concluded that, on the merits and in consideration of all the evidence before him, Mr. Crowe's claim to black lung benefits should fail. Mr. Crowe, and now Mrs. Crowe, seek to employ the justice under the Act standard to contend that, despite that finding, Mrs. Crowe should continue to receive benefits because of the conduct of the employer. Certainly, the proceedings in this case are protracted and the matter might well have been resolved much sooner had the employer better defended the case at the outset. Moreover, there appears to be no significant dispute that the surety's failure to pay benefits while the modification proceeding continued was in violation of law. See 20 C.F.R. § 725.502(a)(1). [15] Nevertheless, the ALJ was in the best position to determine whether modification served justice under the Act. We already have said that, [t]o the extent that an ALJ determines that there are important reasons grounded in the language and policy of the Act that overcome the preference for accuracy, that determination should not be disturbed. Hilliard, 292 F.3d at 547. The same is true when the ALJ finds that the preference for accuracy outweighs competing considerations in a given case. Here, the ALJ properly considered Mrs. Crowe's arguments that justice under the Act would not be served by denial of a modification that he already had concluded was warranted by the evidence. He acknowledged the unlawfulness of the employer's conduct, but found it did not work a manifest injustice to Mr. Crowe because his benefits were paid by the Trust Fund during the litigation. [16] The ALJ considered the diligence of the employer and the quality of evidence produced in the modification proceeding. [17] His opinion makes clear that, considered in whole, the employer's conduct in pursuing modification was not sufficiently problematic that it should upset the statutory preference for accuracy of benefits determination. Decision and Order of ALJ at 6 (Jan. 30, 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In sum, it was within the discretion of the ALJ to conclude that the interest in accuracy, which occupies a unique place in black lung litigation, should not be outweighed by the employer'sor the insurer'sconduct in this litigation.