Court Opinion

ID: 9408503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-12 21:00:42.040143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:44.304336
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1903      Doc: 33         Filed: 07/11/2023    Pg: 1 of 6

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1903

        WEST VIRGINIA CWP FUND, as carrier for Justin Construction Company,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
        UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JESSE L. ATHEY,

                            Respondents.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (20-0345-BLA)

        Submitted: May 31, 2023                                           Decided: July 11, 2023

        Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: William S. Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for
        Petitioner. Brad A. Austin, WOLFE WILLIAMS & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for
        Respondent Jesse L. Athey.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1903      Doc: 33         Filed: 07/11/2023      Pg: 2 of 6

        PER CURIAM:

               West Virginia CWP Fund, as carrier for Justin Construction Fund (“Employer”),

        petitions this court for review of the Benefits Review Board’s (“BRB”) order affirming the

        Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision granting Jesse L. Athey’s subsequent claim

        for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (the “Act”), 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944.

        Employer argues that Athey’s claim was untimely and that the ALJ erroneously discredited

        Dr. George L. Zaldivar’s opinion when concluding that Employer failed to rebut the

        presumption that Athey’s total disability was due to pneumoconiosis. We deny the petition

        for review.

               In evaluating an ALJ’s decision that the BRB has affirmed, “[w]e review the BRB’s

        decision for errors of law and to ensure the BRB’s decision adhered to its statutory standard

        of review.” Dehue Coal Co. v. Ballard, 65 F.3d 1189, 1193 (4th Cir. 1995). Our review

        is limited to considering “whether substantial evidence supports the factual findings of the

        ALJ and whether the legal conclusions of the [BRB] and ALJ are rational and consistent

        with applicable law.” Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Stallard, 876 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir.

        2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the legal conclusions of the BRB and

        the ALJ de novo. Edd Potter Coal Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 39 F.4th

        202, 206 (4th Cir. 2022).

               “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence

        as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Sea “B” Mining

        Co. v. Addison, 831 F.3d 244, 252 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To

        determine whether this standard has been met, we consider whether all of the relevant

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1903      Doc: 33         Filed: 07/11/2023     Pg: 3 of 6

        evidence has been analyzed and whether the ALJ has sufficiently explained his rationale

        in crediting certain evidence.” Hobet Mining, LLC v. Epling, 783 F.3d 498, 504 (4th Cir.

        2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               “We are not at liberty to substitute our judgment for that of the ALJ but rather must

        defer to the ALJ’s evaluation of the proper weight to accord the evidence, including

        conflicting medical opinions.” Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cochran, 718 F.3d 319, 322 (4th

        Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, an ALJ remains obliged to

        conduct “an appropriate analysis of the evidence to support his conclusion.” Millburn

        Colliery Co. v. Hicks, 138 F.3d 524, 529 (4th Cir. 1998). “[E]ven if legitimate reasons

        exist for rejecting or crediting certain evidence, the ALJ cannot do so for no reason or for

        the wrong reason.” Addison, 831 F.3d at 252-53 (cleaned up). The ALJ also is required

        “to adequately explain why he credited certain evidence and discredited other evidence.”

        Hicks, 138 F.3d at 532. While this requirement “is not intended to be a mandate for

        administrative verbosity,” the reviewing court must be able to “discern what the ALJ did

        and why he did it.” Piney Mountain Coal Co. v. Mays, 176 F.3d 753, 762 n.10 (4th Cir.

        1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               A miner must file a claim for benefits “within three years after a medical

        determination of total disability due to pneumoconiosis which has been communicated to

        the miner.” 20 C.F.R. § 725.308(a); see 30 U.S.C. § 932(f). There is “a rebuttable

        presumption that every claim for benefits is timely filed.” 20 C.F.R. § 725.308(b). A

        medical determination of total disability due to pneumoconiosis need not be communicated

        in writing to trigger the statute of limitations. Island Creek Coal Co. v. Henline, 456 F.3d

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1903      Doc: 33         Filed: 07/11/2023     Pg: 4 of 6

        421, 425-26 (4th Cir. 2006). “[A] medical determination later deemed to be a misdiagnosis

        of pneumoconiosis by virtue of a superseding denial of benefits cannot trigger the statute

        of limitations for subsequent claims.” Consolidation Coal Co. v. Williams, 453 F.3d 609,

        618 (4th Cir. 2006).

               In arguing that Athey’s claim is untimely, Employer relies on Athey’s testimony

        that a doctor told him around 2000 that he was totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis. We

        conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding that no doctor informed

        Athey that he was totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis around 2000.             The ALJ

        permissibly determined that Athey’s response to a leading question on cross-examination

        was confused, lacking in detail and specificity, and not credible. The ALJ also permissibly

        relied on the testimony of Athey’s wife as further support for the decision to discredit

        Athey’s testimony. Additionally, contrary to Employer’s argument, the ALJ did not

        commit error under Heline. Instead, the ALJ noted the absence of a written report only to

        emphasize Employer’s failure to bolster Athey’s testimony with more concrete evidence.

        We therefore affirm the agency’s determination that Athey’s claim was timely.

               Turning to the merits of Athey’s claim, to establish entitlement to living miner’s

        benefits under the Act, the miner must prove: “(1) that he has pneumoconiosis, in either its

        clinical or legal form; (2) that the pneumoconiosis arose out of coal mine employment; (3)

        that he is totally disabled by a pulmonary or respiratory impairment; and (4) that his

        pneumoconiosis is a substantially contributing cause of his total disability.” W. Va. CWP

        Fund v. Bender, 782 F.3d 129, 133 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); see

        20 CF.R. §§ 718.204(c)(1), 725.202(d)(2). However, if the miner was employed in

                                                     4
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1903      Doc: 33         Filed: 07/11/2023     Pg: 5 of 6

        underground coal mines for 15 years or more, has had a chest x-ray interpreted as negative

        for complicated pneumoconiosis, and demonstrates that he has a totally disabling

        respiratory or pulmonary impairment, he is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that he is

        totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis (the “15-year presumption”).             30 U.S.C.

        § 921(c)(4); 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(b)(1), (c)(1). When the 15-year presumption applies, “we

        presume both prongs of the showing required for benefits eligibility: that the claimant has

        pneumoconiosis arising from coal mine employment, and that this disease is a substantially

        contributing cause of his disability,” shifting the burden to the employer to affirmatively

        rebut the presumption. W. Va. CWP Fund v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs,

        880 F.3d 691, 695 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

               A miner may prove total disability through: (1) qualifying pulmonary function tests;

        (2) qualifying arterial blood gas studies; (3) a showing that the miner has pneumoconiosis

        and the medical evidence demonstrates that he “suffer[s] from cor pulmonale with right-

        sided congestive heart failure”; or (4) well-documented and well-reasoned physicians’

        opinions “conclud[ing] that [the] miner’s respiratory or pulmonary condition prevents or

        prevented the miner from engaging in” his last coal mining job or similar work. 20 C.F.R.

        § 718.204(b)(2); see 20 C.F.R. § 718.204(b)(1). A “miner can establish total disability

        upon a mere showing of evidence that satisfies any one of the four alternative methods, but

        only in the absence of contrary probative evidence.” Lane v. Union Carbide Corp., 105

        F.3d 166, 171 (4th Cir. 1997) (cleaned up). “If contrary probative evidence exists, the ALJ

        must assign the contrary evidence appropriate weight and determine whether it outweighs

                                                    5
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1903      Doc: 33         Filed: 07/11/2023      Pg: 6 of 6

        the evidence that supports a finding of total disability.” Hicks, 138 F.3d at 529 (internal

        quotation marks omitted).

               Employer argues that the ALJ erroneously failed to consider all the relevant

        information and explanations provided by Zaldivar when concluding that his opinion failed

        to rebut the 15-year presumption. We conclude that the ALJ’s opinion was well-reasoned

        and supported by substantial evidence. As the ALJ noted, Zaldivar opined that Athey’s

        2017 fall caused his hypoxemia. However, the ALJ permissibly determined that Zaldivar

        failed to adequately account for a qualifying 1999 arterial blood gas study when he based

        his determination of causation on a nonqualifying 2015 arterial blood gas study. Zaldivar

        himself noted that the 2015 arterial blood gas study was an outlier which differed from all

        other arterial blood gas studies on record, but he did not explain why it was more entitled

        to weight than the 1999 study.

               Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument

        because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               PETITION DENIED

                                                     6