Court Opinion

ID: 9477437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:23:27.227586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:52.690198
License: Public Domain

SEITZ, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
The majority holds that the interim presumption was not rebutted because the ALJ’s finding that there was no respiratory impairment was insufficient to rebut the presumption under 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(b)(2). I think that the AU’s finding was sufficient to rebut the presumption under 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(b)(3), and I dissent because I cannot agree with the majority’s statement in footnote three that the Director relies only on 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(b)(2). Rather, I interpret the Director’s brief as stating a preference for resolution of this issue under subsection (b)(2), but not ruling out a determination *741under subsection (b)(3). In so concluding, I rely on the Director’s statement in his brief that “[t]his Court may affirm the AU’s rebuttal finding under either subsection [(b)(2) or (b)(3)].” Indeed, the Director cites several cases in which the presumption was rebutted under subsection (b)(3), but notes that he believes that this court should find rebuttal pursuant to (b)(2) rather than (b)(3). In sum, I cannot conclude that the Director has eschewed (b)(3) rebuttal.
The AU adopted Dr. Sahillioglu’s finding of no respiratory impairment, found that the interim presumption had been rebutted, and found that the claimant was not totally disabled because of pneumoconi-osis. In light of these findings, the BRB held that the presumption had been rebutted under 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(b)(2). While I agree with the BRB’s conclusion that the presumption has been rebutted, I find that it has been rebutted under 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(b)(3).
Subsection (b)(3) provides that the presumption can be rebutted “if the evidence establishes that the total disability or death of the miner did not arise in whole or in part out of coal mine employment.” 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(b)(3). A finding of no respiratory impairment logically compels the conclusion that there is no total disability which arises even in part out of coal mine employment. Thus, the presumption was rebutted.