Court Opinion

ID: 9959945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 21:00:34.776348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:00.447239
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1938      Doc: 34         Filed: 04/11/2024    Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1938

        MILBURN COLLIERY COMPANY,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        DAVID  S.  WILLIAMS; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF   WORKERS’
        COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
        LABOR,

                            Respondents.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (21-0160 BLA)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                         Decided: April 11, 2024

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ashley Marie Harman, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for
        Petitioner. David S. Williams, Respondent Pro Se. Ann Marie Scarpino, UNITED
        STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Federal Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1938      Doc: 34         Filed: 04/11/2024     Pg: 2 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

               Milburn Colliery Company (“Milburn”) petitions this court for review of the

        Benefits Review Board’s (BRB) order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ)

        decision awarding David S. Williams benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30

        U.S.C. §§ 901 to 944. Milburn first argues that the ALJ erred in calculating the length of

        Williams’ coal mine employment and, therefore, in invoking the 15-year presumption of

        total disability due to pneumoconiosis under 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4). Milburn further

        contends that the ALJ’s conclusion that it did not rebut the presumption is irrational,

        unsupported by substantial evidence, and contrary to law. Finding no error, we deny the

        petition for review.

               Our review of a BRB decision upholding an award of benefits is “highly

        deferential.” W. Va. CWP Fund v. Dir., OWCP, 880 F.3d 691, 697 (4th Cir. 2018). We

        consider “only 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.” Hobet Mining, LLC v. Epling, 783 F.3d 498, 504 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). “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 evidence has been analyzed and whether the ALJ has sufficiently

        explained h[er] rationale in crediting certain evidence.” Hobet Mining, LLC, 783 F.3d

        at 504 (internal quotation marks omitted).

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1938      Doc: 34         Filed: 04/11/2024     Pg: 3 of 5

               Milburn first argues that the ALJ erred in calculating the length of Williams’ coal

        mine employment. 1     Specifically, Milburn argues that the ALJ erroneously credited

        Williams with 10 years of employment prior to 1965. Milburn contends that the ALJ failed

        to explain the method by which she calculated the length of this employment and did not

        address the inconsistencies among the existing accounts of Williams’ pre-1965

        employment history. However, based on our review of the record, we conclude that the

        ALJ’s calculation of the length of Williams’ pre-1965 employment was rational, supported

        by substantial evidence, and adequately explained. The ALJ recognized the inconsistencies

        in the accounts of Williams’ employment history, explained that Williams’ testimony

        established 10 years of pre-1965 coal mine employment, and reasoned that the relevant

        evidence largely corroborated his testimony. Moreover, the ALJ also found that Williams

        established five full years of coal mine employment after 1965, and Milburn does not

               1
                  We reject Milburn’s contention that a prior ALJ decision denying Williams
        benefits collaterally estopped the ALJ from considering the length of his employment.
        Because the prior ALJ denied benefits on the ground that Williams did not have
        pneumoconiosis, that ALJ’s calculation of Williams’ employment length was not critical
        or necessary to the decision. See Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., 468 F.3d 213, 217
        (4th Cir. 2006) (noting that collateral estoppel does not apply unless determination of
        relevant issue was “a critical and necessary part of the decision in the prior proceeding”
        (internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, while Milburn asserts that the BRB
        exceeded the scope of its review on this issue by making factual findings not first made by
        the ALJ, the record reflects that the BRB permissibly applied the legal principles of
        collateral estoppel to the undisputed facts. See Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock
        Co. v. Parker, 935 F.2d 20, 23 (4th Cir. 1991) (discussing BRB’s authority to correct legal
        errors).

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1938      Doc: 34         Filed: 04/11/2024     Pg: 4 of 5

        challenge this finding on appeal. Accordingly, we conclude that the ALJ properly invoked

        the 15-year presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis. 2

               Next, Milburn argues that the ALJ erred in finding that it failed to rebut the

        presumption of pneumoconiosis. In particular, Milburn contends that the ALJ applied the

        wrong legal standard and irrationally discredited the opinions of Drs. Zalvidar and

        Spagnolo, who both opined that Williams did not have legal pneumoconiosis. But the ALJ

        correctly recognized that, to rebut the presumption that Williams had legal

        pneumoconiosis, Milburn had to establish that Williams did not have a disease

        “significantly related to, or substantially aggravated by, coal dust exposure.” 20 C.F.R.

        § 718.201(b) (defining legal pneumoconiosis); see 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(d)(1)(i) (providing

        that employer can rebut 15-year presumption by establishing that the miner does not have

        clinical or legal pneumoconiosis); W. Va. CWP Fund, 880 F.3d at 695 (holding that

        employer satisfies the § 718.305(d)(1)(i) “standard for rebuttal” by “prov[ing] the obverse

        [of the presumption]: that the miner’s impairment is not significantly related to, or

        substantially aggravated by, the [15] years or more he has spent in coal mines” (internal

        quotation marks omitted)). And while Drs. Zalvidar and Spagnolo opined that Williams

        had asthma, neither doctor adequately explained his conclusion that Williams’ coal dust

               2
                Since the ALJ properly attributed Williams with 15 years of employment—the
        minimum amount necessary for invocation of the presumption of disability due to
        pneumoconiosis—we need not address Milburn’s argument that the ALJ erred in crediting
        Williams with an additional 4.44 years of partial coal mine employment between 1965
        and 1974. See 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4); 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(b).

                                                    4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1938      Doc: 34         Filed: 04/11/2024     Pg: 5 of 5

        exposure did not contribute to or aggravate this condition. Therefore, the ALJ reasonably

        discounted their opinions. 3

               Accordingly, we deny Milburn’s petition for review for the reasons stated by the

        BRB. Williams v. Milburn Colliery Co., No. 21-0160 BLA (B.R.B. July 13, 2022). 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 in the decisional

        process.

                                                                              PETITION DENIED

               3
                 Milburn also argues that the ALJ erroneously credited Dr. Forehand’s opinion that
        Williams had legal pneumoconiosis, failed to account for the physicians’ qualifications in
        weighing their opinions, erred in addressing Williams’ hospitalization and treatment
        records, and erred in concluding that Milburn failed to establish that no part of Williams’
        disability was due to pneumoconiosis. However, because the ALJ reasonably discredited
        the only medical evidence that attempted to rebut the presumption of legal pneumoconiosis,
        we need not reach Milburn’s additional arguments.

                                                    5