Opinion ID: 755187
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the regulatory language

Text: 14 The regulations provide further details regarding the requirements for a hearing. Under the regulatory framework governing modification requests, once a claim or modification request is filed, the initial processing and evidentiary development is undertaken by the district director. See 20 C.F.R. § § 725.410-725.417; see also Saginaw Mining Co., 818 F.2d at 1282. The district director then issues a proposed decision on the claim, see 20 C.F.R. § 725.418, which the parties can then accept, request revision, or reject and request a hearing before an ALJ. See 20 C.F.R. § 725.419. Most importantly, [i]n any claim for which a formal hearing is requested or ordered, ... the [district director] shall refer the claim to the Office of Administrative Law Judges for a hearing. 20 C.F.R. § 725.421(a). 15 A hearing is not necessary if all parties give written waiver of their rights to a hearing and request a decision on the documentary record. See 20 C.F.R. § 725.461(a). 3 The only other instance in the regulations which permits a decision without holding a requested hearing is when a party moves for summary judgment, and the ALJ determines that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See 20 C.F.R. § 725.452(c). As the Director points out, [t]here is no regulatory provision which would permit an administrative law judge to initiate summary judgment proceedings sua sponte. Director's Br. at 10. 16 As this court noted in Cunningham, 17 the Supreme Court has held that courts should give the Secretary's interpretation of the black lung regulations substantial deference. Mullins Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 484 U.S. 135, 108 S.Ct. 427, 98 L.Ed.2d 450 (1987); accord Saginaw Mining Co. v. Mazzulli, 818 F.2d 1278, 1283 (6th Cir.1987). Here, the Secretary has made clear that her interpretation of the regulations requires the ALJ to hold a hearing in a modification proceeding when requested by a party. 18 Cunningham, 144 F.3d at 388. The Secretary has likewise made clear her interpretations of the regulations in this case, arguing that a hearing at which Robbins could introduce testimonial evidence is required. See Director's Br. at 16-17.