Court Opinion

ID: 9479468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:19:39.866061+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:04.044808
License: Public Domain

BOGGS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the portion of Judge Cohn’s well-reasoned opinion which establishes rules amplifying the “situs” and “function” tests expounded in Southard and Baker. It appears to me, however, that his analysis of the “situs” requirement requires that the ALJ find that the claimant had some type of contact, however occasional, with the mining operation itself. The opinion, at pages 932-933, seems to contemplate, and in fact relies on cases involving, “frequent contact with the extraction site and accompanying dust exposure.” Further, the court emphasizes, at page 934, the integration of repair shops and mines, referring to the “availability of a staff of mechanics who can be called to the pits on short notice.” The significance of this integration lies in the proposition that if repairmen, such as Petracca, are frequently required to work at the mines, the probability of harmful dust exposure is vastly increased. The distance between the repair shop and the mine, correspondingly, becomes less important, thus allowing the claimant to meet the “situs” requirement.
In this case, however, while he did discuss the question of whether Petracca worked at the mines, the AU did not make any determination as to the integration of the repair shop and any of the pits, or any determination as to the working conditions in the repair shop. After considering the evidence presented on the question of whether the claimant was required to work *936at the strip mines, the AU concluded: “After thoroughly examining the record, I find that the testimony as it applied to the issue of ‘situs,’ is inconsistent and unclear.” Because the AU did not make any findings on the integration issue or the actual dust exposure suffered by the repairmen, I cannot agree on this record that we can say that the AU determined, based on our statement of the rule of law, that the claimant actually worked “around” a coal mine. Thus, while I concur in reversing the decision of the Benefits Review Board, I would remand to the AU for further proceedings consistent with these views.