Court Opinion

ID: 9465061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:34:47.193646+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:57.387229
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent to the direction of the court to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Rather, I think the case should be remanded to the Secretary to reconsider the ease under the proper standards.
Although I agree with that part of the reasoning of the court set out in parts I and *324II of the opinion. I do not agree with much of the reasoning in part III of the opinion for the reasons which follow:
I
That part of the opinion of the panel denominated “(1) X-rays,” on page 4 of the opinion, is copied verbatim from Petry v. Califano, 577 F.2d 860 (4th Cir. 1978). The last sentence of that paragraph is “Therefore, inconclusive or contradictory results of the X-rays inure to the benefit of neither party.”
I do not quarrel with the application of that sentence in Petry, for it may very well have been true in that case. Here, however, the panel obviously would extend the paragraph I have referred to, and especially the sentence I have quoted, into an across-the-board application, meaning that where there is contradictory X-ray evidence, it may inure to the benefit of neither party.
This across-the-board application of Petry I think is contrary to 30 U.S.C. § 923(b).
What I think the analysis should be keyed to is the reconciliation of 30 U.S.C. § 923(b) and 30 U.S.C. § 921(b)(4).
Section 921(c)(4) provides that a miner employed 15 years or more in an underground mine who presents a black lung claim and “submitted in connection with” such claim is an X-ray which is “interpreted as negative with respect to the requirements”, permitting recovery on account of such X-ray under the terms of the statute, then “if other evidence demonstrates the existence of a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that such miner is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis. . ” The just quoted language relating to the consideration of evidence in part B claims must be read, however, in accordance with the statutory mandate of § 923(b). A part of that section is: “In determining the validity of claims under this part [part B], all relevant evidence shall be considered, including, where relevant, medical tests such as blood gas studies, X-ray examination, electrocardiogram, pulmonary function studies, or physical performance tests, and any medical history, evidence submitted by the claimant’s physician, or his wife’s affidavits, and, in the case of a deceased miner, other appropriate affidavits of persons with knowledge of the miner’s physical condition, and other supportive materials.” (italics added).
It is at once apparent that the across-the-board ruling that the panel makes here that inconclusive or contradictory results of X-rays inure to the benefit of neither party is in conflict with 30 U.S.C. § 923(b).
I think the correct construction of § 921(c)(4) with respect to the X-ray requirement above mentioned is that when all of the X-ray evidence submitted in connection with the claim is interpreted as negative, so that the claim does not meet the requirements of § 921(c)(3)(A), then, if other evidence demonstrates the existence of a totally disabling respiratory pulmonary impairment, the presumption should arise. Construing § 921(c)(4) in this manner makes it entirely consistent with § 923(b) and gives full effect to both sections of the statute. That statutes should be read as consistent rather than inconsistent is too familiar a rule to bear citation.
As I see the case, then, assuming all the X-ray evidence does not fulfill the statutory requirements of § 921(c)(3), if the other evidence is sufficient to establish the presumption, in determining if the presumption is overcome, the Secretary “shall” consider “all relevant evidence” which specifically by statute includes “X-ray examination.” Thus, I think the Secretary is entitled to consider X-ray examinations in considering whether or not the presumption permitted by § 921(c)(4) is overcome, as he is not in considering whether it arises.
I think the analysis in this case forbidding the Secretary from taking that into account is contrary to § 923(b). No rule of evidence which I am familiar with prevents the consideration of relevant evidence unless it is excluded by public policy, Constitution, or statute, none of which have any application here. If some of the X-rays submitted by either side in connection with a black lung claim show the miner not to have black lung, then they should be considered, keeping in mind, however, that no *325claim can “be denied solely on the basis of the results of a chest roentgenogram.” 30 U.S.C. § 923(b). In like vein, if some of the X-rays submitted show the miner to have black lung, I also think the Secretary must consider those as a part of “all relevant evidence,” although the X-ray evidence viewed alone was insufficient to establish the right to recovery under § 921(c)(3). The only reason for consideration of other evidence separately from the X-rays is the requirement of the statute in § 921(c)(4). For other purposes and judging the whole case, the evidence in these cases should be weighed just as it in in any other case, subject, of course, to statutory restrictions and command.
II
The blood gas tests, as the opinion of the panel notes, were administered by the claimant’s physicians. They are:
Arterial PCO2 (mmHri Arterial PO2
Date 3/12/74 36 3/12/74 60
5/16/72 37.5 5/16/72 89 .
(at rest)
5/16/72 36.5 5/16/72 84
(after exercise)
On page 798 of CFR 20 (parts 400-499) (1977), are tabulated values which permit a finding of total disability due to black lung in the absence of evidence rebutting such finding if the oxygen tension is equal to or less than stated values with relation to the carbon dioxide tension. For carbon dioxide tension of 36, the oxygen tension permitting recovery is 59; for carbon dioxide of 37.5, the oxygen is 57.5; and for carbon dioxide of 36.5, the oxygen is 58.5.
It is at once apparent that none of the oxygen tension readings permit recovery. All of them are outside the required values, and two of them are substantially above the breaking point.
Especially in view of the fact that these tests were made by the claimant’s own physicians and the command of § 923(b) to consider “blood gas studies,” I do not believe the analysis of the panel is sufficient to entirely discount as it does the blood gas tests except as it weighs the evidence and considers them as “demonstrating a disturbance in the ventilation to perfusion relationship.” Nothing in the record that I can see shows what a normal blood gas study would be. I fault equally both parties for this oversight, the plaintiff because he has the burden of proof, and the Secretary because he undoubtedly has the information at hand.
Ill
The opinion of the panel does not mention Social Security Ruling 73-37, expressly relied on by the Secretary in denying the claim. The Secretary says, on page 10 of the Appeals Council opinion (App. p. 15), that it “is further guided by Social Security Ruling 73-37 . . . which holds that where X-ray or pulmonary function test results fail to establish total disability under the interim criteria of § 410.490, there is an inference that the miner is not totally disabled.” The Council further stated that it believed “that the other relevant evidence presented in this case does not outweigh the inference presented by negative X-rays and pulmonary study values which exceed the liberal interim criteria that the claimant was not totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis, actual or presumed, at any time on or before June 30, 1973.”
Thus, the Council specifically gave weight to the inference which it found was required by the Social Security Ruling.
I would simply hold that Social' Security Ruling 73-37 is invalid. The principal reason for my thinking is that it sets up an inference neither authorized by statute nor by the dictates of common knowledge. The failure to prove a positive does not necessarily infer the negative as the inference set up by the ruling requires. It also may be said to be somewhat contrary to § 923(b) which requires the Secretary to consider all relevant evidence, as well as setting up an evidentiary rule not authorized by § 921(c)(4) in the consideration of what other evidence should demonstrate the existence of a totally disabling respiratory or *326pulmonary impairment. See Prokes v. Mathews, 559 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir. 1977), and Bozwich v. Mathews, 558 F.2d 475 (8th Cir. 1977).
IV
On the whole case, I think the panel withdraws from the Secretary the function of weighing evidence, and I do not think that is permissible in this case. One illustration which should suffice is that, although the panel holds contradictory X-ray results cancel each other out and inure to the benefit of neither party, it goes on to give the benefit to the plaintiff of contradictory ventilatory and blood gas tests, even the interpretations thereof, with no authorization I can find.
I would vacate and remand.