Badger Coal Company v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Doyle Kittle

83 F.3d 414, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 22148, 1996 WL 209714
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedApril 30, 1996
Docket95-1694
StatusUnpublished

This text of 83 F.3d 414 (Badger Coal Company v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Doyle Kittle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Badger Coal Company v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Doyle Kittle, 83 F.3d 414, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 22148, 1996 WL 209714 (4th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

83 F.3d 414

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
BADGER COAL COMPANY, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United
States Department of Labor; Doyle Kittle, Respondents.

No. 95-1694.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: March 6, 1996.
Decided: April 30, 1996.

ARGUED: William Steele Mattingly, JACKSON & KELLY, Morgantown, WV, for Petitioner. Eileen Mary McCarthy, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, DC, for Respondents. ON BRIEF: Thomas S. Williamson, Jr., Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate Solicitor, Christian P. Barber, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, DC, for Respondent Director.

Before HALL, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

Badger Coal Company petitions for review of an order of the Department of Labor's Benefits Review Board (BRB) upholding the award of black lung benefits to former miner Doyle Kittle. We affirm.

I.

Doyle Kittle was born on November 1, 1918. He worked in the coal mines for 35 years, all underground in dusty conditions. His last job was shuttle car operator for Badger Coal. In addition to coal dust, Kittle's lungs were subjected to approximately 40 years of cigarettes (one-half to one pack per day). Moreover, he has a rare genetic condition that causes a deficiency in a blood protein, alpha-1-antitrypsin. This protein protects the lungs, and persons with low levels of it are particularly susceptible to emphysema. For one or more of these reasons, Kittle has developed a totally disabling respiratory condition.

Kittle filed this claim seventeen years ago, in December 1978. It is therefore subject to the interim regulations at 20 C.F.R. Part 727. The claim has had a slow and tortuous history.

A claims examiner initially found Kittle eligible for benefits and so notified Badger Coal. Badger Coal pointed out that Kittle was still working. On October 31, 1979, approval of the claim was made contingent on Kittle's retirement, which occurred the following March. Badger Coal requested a hearing.

The hearing was held on June 5, 1980, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued a decision awarding benefits on September 16, 1980. Badger Coal requested review.

On July 23, 1982, a badly split BRB panel remanded the claim. On remand, the ALJ denied benefits, based largely on a then-new BRB decision1 that rebuttal under 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(b)(3) could be established by proof that the miner's pneumoconiosis was not disabling "in and of itself."

Kittle filed a notice of appeal and a motion for reconsideration. The BRB dismissed the appeal as premature, and the motion was later denied. Kittle made a timely request for modification of the denial. A four-year lull then occurred, the cause of which is not apparent in the record. Meanwhile, we rejected the BRB's "in and of itself" standard for (b)(3) rebuttal in Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Massey, 736 F.2d 120 (4th Cir.1984).2

On October 27, 1988, the district director denied modification. Kittle requested a hearing, which was held October 19, 1989. Before the ALJ issued his decision, this court held that rebuttal under 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(b) was "more restrictive" than rebuttal under the regulations at 20 C.F.R. § 410.490, in violation of 30 U.S.C. § 902(f)(2), and that § 727.203(b) was consequently invalid in part. Taylor v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 895 F.2d 178 (4th Cir.1990).

The ALJ awarded benefits on August 13, 1990. He made alternative holdings: first, under Taylor, the only form of rebuttal offered by the employer was unavailable; second, if Taylor were wrongly decided, he would nonetheless find that the employer had not established (b)(3) rebuttal. Badger Coal again appealed to the BRB, and, while the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court reversed Taylor. Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, 501 U.S. 680 (1991).

On February 9, 1993, the BRB issued an odd sort of advisory opinion. It affirmed the ALJ's finding of no (b)(3) rebuttal, and contingently the award of benefits, but it remanded for reconsideration of whether modification was available at all. This remand never happened. The Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Pro grams requested reconsideration; meanwhile, this court adopted the Director's interpretation of the modification process. Jessee v. Director, OWCP, 5 F.3d 723 (4th Cir.1993). In light of Jessee, the BRB granted the Director's motion and affirmed the award of benefits outright.

Badger Coal petitions for review.

II.

Within one year of the denial of a black lung claim, the claimant may request modification. 20 C.F.R. § 725.310(a). Modification is available if there has been a change in conditions or there were a mistake of fact in the prior denial. Id. Badger Coal asserts that modification was unavailable here. We disagree.

Until the year expires, the district director (or, if the claim is contested, the ALJ) has the authority to simply change his mind about a prior determination of fact, including the ultimate fact of entitlement. Jessee, 5 F.3d at 724-725; O'Keeffe v. Aerojet-General Shipyards, 404 U.S. 254, 256 (1971) (per curiam) (decided under Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act). We will therefore review the decision on the merits.

III.

A.

The standard governing our review is familiar: the administrative decision must be affirmed if it is in accordance with the law and is supported by substantial evidence. Amigo Smokeless Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP, 642 F.2d 68 (4th Cir.1981). The employer faces a difficult task here, and not only because of the deferential standard of review. The burden of proof on the pivotal issue--(b)(3) rebuttal--is on the employer, and it must make the strict showing required by Massey. Under Massey, the employer must rule out any contribution to or aggravation of the claimant's impairment by coal mine employment. The uncertain state of medical knowledge thus works to the miner's benefit. Id., 736 F.2d at 123-124.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
83 F.3d 414, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 22148, 1996 WL 209714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/badger-coal-company-v-director-office-of-workers-compensation-programs-ca4-1996.