Court Opinion

ID: 9466818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:28:41.885273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:58.668440
License: Public Domain

K. K. HALL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
As much as I would like to concur in the majority opinion, I cannot. The majority concludes, despite the Secretary’s regulation to the contrary, 20 C.F.R. § 410.110(j), that the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, and its 1972 amendment, provides benefits to self-employed miners. The bare language of the 1969 Act is subject to the majority’s interpretation, but I think that interpretation is foreclosed by the legislature’s explicit response to the dilemma of the self-employed miner and by our own precedents, which have already developed a body of case law implementing the regulation which the majority now strikes down as unreasonable.
There is no discussion in the legislative history of the 1969 Act or its 1972 amendments regarding coverage of the self-employed miner. In 1977, however, Congress recognized the special need to provide for the self-employed miner by amending the definition of “miner” to include “any individual who works or has worked in or around a coal mine or a coal preparation facility in the extraction or preparation of coal.” 30 U.S.C. § 902(d). The explanation of this amendment by the Senate Committee on Human Resources is most illuminating:
Definition of miner — The term is expanded in the committee bill to include additional workers. Existing law limits the term miner to “any individual who is or was employed in a coal mine.” The expanded definition in the committee bill includes those managers or owners of very small mining operations who themselves work or have worked in the extraction of coal. The number of such individ*923uals is very small — not more than 500— and the number of these who are totally disabled because of their work in a mine must be far smaller; but the Committee believes that they should be permitted to apply for benefits by virtue of their work as coal miners.
S.Rep.No. 209, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 20 (1977).
The Senate Committee’s clear pronouncement that the new definition expanded1 the coverage of the Act finds support elsewhere in the legislative history of the 1977 Act. In the same report, the Committee itemized certain “Clarifications of Legislative Intent,” id. at 22-23, but made no mention of the definition of “miner.” The conference committee remarked that the Act’s definition of “miner” had been modified by the Senate amendment. H.R.Conf. No. 864, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 15 (1978) reprinted in U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 308, 308-09.
It is settled that subsequent legislative pronouncements may be considered to assist in the interpretation of prior legislation on the same subject. Great Northern Railway v. United States, 315 U.S. 262, 277, 62 S.Ct. 529, 535, 86 L.Ed. 836 (1942). The majority attempts to circumvent this damaging legislative history by asserting that the deference we normally accord such statements is inappropriate when intent of the earlier Congress is clearly to the contrary. To me, the mandate of the 1969 Congress was anything but clear on the question now before us.2
Underlying the majority opinion is the assumption that Congress felt the debt owed the miner to be a public debt for which the citizens of this country are responsible because of their exploitation of the human resource that keeps their lights burning and their houses warm. Maj. op. n. 22. Indeed, this is true, but only in part. Congress also recognized another responsible party — the employer. The very structure of the Act is directed towards the ultimate assumption of liability by the operator-employer, preferably under an approved state workmen’s compensation law. 30 U.S.C. §§ 931-933 [Part C claims]. See also Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 18-20, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893-2894, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). Created in response to the inadequacies of existing state workmen’s compensation laws, the Black Lung Act is nevertheless a workmen’s compensation type of law.
The owner in theory, has the ability to earn a profit from his investment, to decide what his role in the production will be, and to control, to the extent possible, the working conditions in the mine. Consistent with this view, Congress might well have assumed that the self-employed miner, who sets his own wage and controls his own working conditions, could be left to his own devices. The Secretary’s definition, viewed in this light, is sustainable. See Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965). And, our opinion in Ball v. Mathews, 563 F.2d 1148 (4th Cir. 1977) embodies this approach by adopting a practical, rather than formalistic, definition of employment which takes into account degree of control and opportunity for profit. Id. at 1151-52. Cf., United States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704, 67 S.Ct. 1463, 91 L.Ed. 1757 (1947).
The case law, of course, does not formally address the particular challenge presented here. See Ball v. Mathews, supra; Neese v. Califano, 594 F.2d 985 (4th Cir. 1979); Fleming v. Weinberger, 412 F.Supp. 293 (W.D.Va.1975); Weaver v. Weinberger, 392 F.Supp. 721 (S.D.W.Va.1975); Markosky v. Mathews, 435 F.Supp. 374 (E.D.Pa.1977); Yenetskie v. Secretary of HEW, 426 F.Supp. 1372 (E.D.Pa.1977); but see Montel v. Weinberger, 546 F.2d 679, 681 (6th Cir. 1976). These holdings are therefore not *924absolutely binding on the court, but I do not think we can easily ignore a growing body of precedent, in this circuit and elsewhere, designed to implement and flesh out the Secretary’s interpretation of the Act.
It is with considerable reluctance that I dissent in this case. The realities of life in the coal fields certainly justify coverage of the self-employed miner under the Act. See S.Rep.No. 279, supra; Yenetskie, supra at 1375. Nevertheless, I think the legislative history and our prior acceptance of the Secretary’s rule compels its application once again in this case.

. It is not insignificant that the committee’s reference to the small number of miners affected by the change seems to argue for a change by minimizing the additional cost of coverage.

. As to the interchangeability of the terms “worked” and “employed” in the legislative history, the Secretary’s definition is not in conflict. “Employees” covered by the Act have “worked” in the mines.