Petition for review granted; order vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge KING wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge GOODWIN joined. Judge SHEDD wrote a dissenting opinion.
OPINION
KING, Circuit Judge.
Nora Collins (“Mrs. Collins”) petitions for review of the 2005 Decision and Order of the Benefits Review Board (the “BRB”) denying her claim for survivor’s benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (the “Black Lung Act” or the “Act”). In so doing, Mrs. Collins contends, inter alia, that the BRB and the Administrative Law Judge (the “ALJ”) erroneously failed to accord collateral estop-pel effect to an earlier ALJ’s 1988 ruling that her late husband suffered from pneu-moconiosis as a result of his work in the coal mines of southern Appalachia. As explained below, we agree with Mrs. Collins that the BRB erred in 2005 by not according preclusive effect to the 1988 ALJ ruling. We grant her petition for review, vacate the 2005 BRB Decision and Order, and remand.
I.
Mrs. Collins’s late husband, Johnny Collins (“Mr. Collins”), worked underground in the coal mines of southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky for over thirty-six years. During his extensive mining career, Mr. Collins, inter alia, operated a cutting machine, a motor, and a loading machine; worked on “the belt”; laid track; loaded coal; and worked as a belt repairman. On February 25, 1988, Mr. Collins was awarded benefits under the Black Lung Act by Decision and Order of an ALJ. Collins v. Pond Creek Coal Co., No. 85-BLA-5349 (Feb. 25, 1988) (the “1988 ALJ Decision”). In that proceeding, the Pond Creek Coal Company (“Pond Creek”) was named as the responsible operator.1 The 1988 ALJ Decision was premised on the ALJ’s findings that Mr. Collins had established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) he had pneu-moconiosis (commonly known as “black lung disease”); (2) he was totally disabled; and (3) his total disability was due to pneu-moconiosis. As a result of the 1988 ALJ Decision — from which Pond Creek did not appeal — Mr. Collins received black lung benefits until his death on September 16, 1997.2
[216]*216On September 29, 1997, Mr. Collins’s widow filed a claim for survivor’s benefits under 30 U.S.C. § 922(a)(2), naming Pond Creek as the responsible operator. In order to be entitled to benefits, Mrs. Collins was obliged to show that (1) she was Mr. Collins’s widow, (2) Mr. Collins suffered from pneumoconiosis as a result of his coal mine employment, and (3) pneumoconiosis hastened his death. See § 922(a)(2) (providing that coal miner’s widow can receive benefits if miner’s death was “due to pneu-moconiosis”); 20 C.F.R. § 718.205(c)(2) & (5) (providing that miner’s death is “due to pneumoconiosis” if pneumoconiosis “hastens the miner’s death”). And, in establishing that Mr. Collins had developed pneumoconiosis as a result of working in the coal mines for thirty-six years, Mrs. Collins asserted that she was entitled to rely on the collateral estoppel effect of the 1988 ALJ Decision.
By Decision and Order of December 21, 2001, the ALJ denied Mrs. Collins’s claim for survivor’s benefits. Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., No.1998-BLA-1295 (Dec. 21, 2001) (the “2001 ALJ Decision”). In so doing, the ALJ ruled the 1988 ALJ Decision was not entitled to collateral estoppel effect because of our 2000 decision in Island Creek Coal Co. v. Compton, 211 F.3d 203 (4th Cir.2000). See 2001 ALJ Decision at 14. In Compton, we ruled that an ALJ must consider all of the relevant evidence in assessing whether a coal miner suffers from pneumoconiosis. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)’s four subsections, a miner’s pneumoconiosis may be established in four ways: (1) chest X-rays; (2) biopsy or autopsy results; (3) certain regulatory presumptions (not relevant here); and (4) a physician’s opinion based on medical evidence. Our Compton decision invalidated the BRB’s practice of allowing an ALJ to find that a coal miner suffers from pneumoconiosis by relying on evidence falling under one of the four subsections of § 718.202(a) (such as chest X-rays), while ignoring contrary evidence belonging to one of the other three subsections (such as physicians’ opinions). See 211 F.3d at 211. That practice, as Judge Wilkins explained in Compton, contradicted 30 U.S.C. § 923(b)’s statutory mandate that an ALJ must consider “all relevant evidence” in making a pneumoconiosis finding. Id.
In this case, the ALJ concluded, in December 2001, that the pre-Compton 1988 ALJ Decision was not entitled to any collateral estoppel effect, and that Mrs. Collins therefore could not rely on it in establishing Mr. Collins’s pneumoconiosis. The ALJ then considered anew the evidence concerning Mr. Collins’s respiratory condition, and he ruled, contrary to the 1988 ALJ Decision, that Mr. Collins had never suffered from pneumoconiosis (and thus that his death had not been hastened by the disease).
Mrs. Collins then appealed the 2001 ALJ Decision to the BRB. By its Decision and Order of January 28, 2003, the BRB affirmed the 2001 ALJ Decision’s collateral estoppel ruling, but it vacated the ALJ’s no-pneumoconiosis finding and remanded for the ALJ to reweigh the evidence. Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., 22 Black Lung Rep. (MB) 1-229 (BRB 2003) (the “2003 BRB Decision”). On remand, the ALJ again found that Mr. Collins had never suffered from pneumoconiosis. Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., No.l998-BLA-1295 (Aug. 16, 2004) (the “2004 ALJ Decision”). Additionally, the ALJ determined that, even assuming the existence of pneu-moconiosis, there was insufficient evidence that the disease hastened Mr. Collins’s death. On Mrs. Collins’s appeal from the 2004 ALJ Decision, the BRB reiterated its earlier position that Mrs. Collins was not entitled to rely on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and it affirmed the ALJ’s find[217]*217ings of no pneumoconiosis and lack of causation. Collins v. Pond Creek Mining Co., BRB No. 04-0899 BLA (June 15, 2005) (the “2005 BRB Decision”). Mrs. Collins has now petitioned for review of the 2005 BRB Decision, and we possess jurisdiction pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 921(c).
II.
We review an ALJ decision that has been affirmed by the BRB to determine whether it is in accordance with the law and supported by substantial evidence. Island Creek Coal Co. v. Compton, 211 F.3d 203, 207-08 (4th Cir.2000); Piney Mountain Coal Co. v. Mays, 176 F.3d 753, 756 (4th Cir.1999). In so doing, we confíne our review to the grounds upon which the BRB based its decision. See Grigg v. Dir., OWCP, 28 F.3d 416, 418 (4th Cir.1994). As always, we review de novo the BRB’s conclusions of law. Milburn Colliery Co. v. Hicks, 138 F.3d 524, 528 (4th Cir.1998).
III.
Mrs. Collins’s principal contention in this proceeding is that the BRB erred in failing to accord collateral estoppel effect to the ruling, made in the 1988 ALJ Decision, that Mr. Collins had developed pneumoconiosis through his coal mine employment.3 “Under collateral estoppel, once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation.” Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153, 99 S.Ct. 970, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979). And, as we have observed, findings of fact made during administrative adjudications are to be accorded the same collateral estoppel effect they would receive if made by a court. See Jones v. SEC, 115 F.3d 1173, 1178 (4th Cir.1997). Because Mrs. Collins is in the position of a plaintiff who was not a party to the 1988 ALJ proceeding, we must assess not only whether the general requirements for collateral estoppel have been established, but also whether application of the doctrine of “offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel” might be unfair to Pond Creek ■ in this case.4
A.
A party seeking to rely on the doctrine of collateral estoppel is obliged to establish five elements: (1) that “the issue sought to be precluded is identical to one previously litigated” (“element one”); (2) that the issue was actually determined in the prior proceeding (“element two”); (3) that the issue’s determination was “a critical and necessary part of the decision in the prior proceeding” (“element three”); (4) that the prior judgment is final and valid (“element four”); and (5) that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted “had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the previous forum” (“element five”). Sedlack v. Braswell Servs. Group, Inc., 134 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir.1998). The doctrine of collateral es-[218]*218toppel does not bar the relitigation of factual issues “where the party against whom the doctrine is invoked had a heavier burden of persuasion on that issue in the first action than he does in the second, or where his adversary has a heavier burden in the second action than he did in the first.” Newport News Shipbldg. & Dry Dock Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 583 F.2d 1273, 1279 (4th Cir.1978). Additionally, the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply to a legal ruling if there has been a “major” change in the governing law since the prior adjudication that “could render [the] previous determination inconsistent with prevailing doctrine.” See Montana v. United, States, 440 U.S. at 161, 99 S.Ct. 970 (citing Comm’r v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 599, 68 S.Ct. 715, 92 L.Ed. 898 (1948)).
In this proceeding, Mrs. Collins seeks to rely on the 1988 ALJ Decision to establish that Mr. Collins developed pneumoconiosis as a result of his thirty-six years in the coal mines. Without question, the issue of whether Mr. Collins developed and suffered from pneumoconiosis as a result of his work in the mines was actually determined in the 1988 proceeding (element two), and that determination was critical and necessary to the 1988 ALJ Decision (element three). Absent a finding of pneumoconiosis, Mr. Collins could not have been awarded black lung benefits under the Act in 1988. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the 1988 ALJ Decision is invalid (element four), or that Pond Creek did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue (element five). Accordingly, Mrs. Collins has plainly established four of the five essential elements for asserting collateral estoppel with respect to the 1988 ALJ Decision’s pneumoconiosis finding. We must further assess, however, whether our Compton decision in 2000 created a difference in burdens such that “the issue sought to be precluded is [not] identical to the one previously litigated” and element one is not met. See Sedlack, 134 F.3d at 224; see also Newport News Shipbldg., 583 F.2d at 1279. Moreover, if the five essential elements of collateral estoppel have been established by Mrs. Collins, we must determine whether the 1988 ALJ Decision’s pneumoconiosis finding has been rendered obsolete by a “major” change in the controlling legal principles, as a result of Compton. See Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. at 161, 99 S.Ct. 970.
1.
The BRB concluded that the 1988 ALJ Decision’s pneumoconiosis ruling was not entitled to preclusive effect under the doctrine of collateral estoppel “because the change in the law in [Island Creek Coal Co. v. Compton, 211 F.3d 203 (4th Cir.2000),] affects the fact-finder’s weighing of the evidence,” and the issue of whether Mr. Collins had pneumoconiosis was therefore “not identical to the one previously litigated.” 2003 BRB Decision, 22 Black Lung Rep. (MB) at 1-233. As spelled out above, in Compton we invalidated the BRB’s practice of allowing ALJs to find the existence of pneumoconiosis by looking exclusively at evidence within one of 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)’s four subsections, while ignoring contrary evidence belonging to one of the other three subsections. See 211 F.3d at 211. In so ruling, however, we left unaltered the legal definition of pneumoconiosis,5 the methods by which a claimant may establish the existence of pneumo-[219]*219eoniosis, and the statutory requirement that a claimant must prove that the coal miner developed pneumoconiosis by a preponderance of the evidence. See id. at 209-10.
This case, then, is unlike those in which a difference in burdens has rendered the doctrine of collateral estoppel inapplicable. In Newport News Shipbuilding, for example, we declined to give preclusive effect to a prior administrative ruling that the claimant’s injury was not work-related. See 583 F.2d at 1278-79. We observed that, in the earlier proceeding, the claimant was obliged to establish “by ‘a preponderance of evidence’ that his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment,” while, in the later proceeding, uncertainty concerning work-relatedness was to be resolved in the claimant’s favor. See id. (citing cases); see also Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v. OWCP, 20 F.3d 289, 294-95 (7th Cir.1994) (declining to accord collateral estoppel effect to determination in state proceedings that claimant was not permanently disabled; where claimant bore burden of establishing disability in state proceedings, but was entitled to presumption of disability in federal proceedings).
The Compton decision, however, left the burden of proof in black lung proceedings unchanged. Prior to Compton, a black lung claimant was obliged to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence and through one of the four methods spelled out in § 718.202(a)’s subsections, that the coal miner had developed pneumoconiosis as a result of his work in the mines. See Beatty v. Danri Corp. & Triangle Enters., 16 Black Lung Rep. (MB) 1-11, 1-13 (BRB 1991). And, in assessing whether that burden had been carried, the ALJ was permitted to consider whether evidence of pneumoconiosis relating to one of the four § 718.202(a) subsections (such as positive chest x-rays) was discredited by contrary evidence of a different sort (such as negative physicians’ reports). See Mabe v. Bishop Coal Co., 9 Black Lung Rep. (MB) 1-67, 1-68 (BRB 1986). That burden-of-proof regime was left in place by Compton, but an ALJ is now obliged (rather than simply permitted) to consider any relevant countervailing evidence, regardless of its form. Mrs. Collins thus bears the same burden (a preponderance of the evidence) to establish the same fact (that Mr. Collins suffered from pneumoconiosis as a result of his thirty-six years working in the coal mines) in the same manner (through one of the four methods prescribed by the § 718.202(a) subsections) as Mr. Collins bore in the ' 1988 ALJ proceeding. In these circumstances, the issue Mrs. Collins seeks to establish though collateral estop-pel — that Mr. Collins suffered from pneu-moconiosis as a result of his work in the mines — is identical to the issue determined in the 1988 ALJ Decision. And the BRB, in its 2005 Decision, erred in reaching a contrary conclusion.
2.
In declining to accord preclusive collateral estoppel effect to the 1988 ALJ Decision, the BRB also relied on its unpublished 2001 decision in Howard v. Valley Camp Coal Co., BRB No. 00-1034 (Aug. 22, 2001) (unpublished), which we affirmed by unpublished decision in 2004, Howard v. Valley Camp Coal Co., 94 Fed.Appx. 170 (4th Cir.2004) (per curiam). Pursuant to our Local Rule 36(c), of course, we ordinarily do not accord precedential value to our unpublished decisions. Indeed, those decisions have no precedential value, and they are “entitled only to the weight they generate by the persuasiveness of their reasoning.” Hupman v. Cook, 640 F.2d 497, 501 & n. 7 (4th Cir.1981). Thus, we must consider whether the reasoning of our unpublished decision in Howard per[220]*220suades us that the 2005 BRB Decision’s collateral estoppel ruling should be affirmed.
In Howard, a coal miner’s widow seeking survivor’s benefits under the Black Lung Act sought to rely on the preclusive effect of a pr e-Compton award of black lung benefits made to her late husband, and establish that he had developed pneu-moconiosis as a result of his work in the coal mines. See 94 Fed.Appx. at 172. Her claim as a widow was denied by the ALJ, and that denial was affirmed by the BRB. Id. We denied Mrs. Howard’s petition for review, concluding, inter alia, that the BRB was correct in not according preclu-sive effect to the pr e-Compton pneumoco-niosis determination. Id. at 173. The analysis of that point in Howard is confined to a single conclusory sentence, however, and relies on Sunnen. See id. (citing Sunnen and concluding that “the Board ... correctly determined that the change in interpretation of the regulations for proving pneumoconiosis, which was effected by this court’s decision in Compton, was sufficiently significant to warrant refusal to apply issue preclusion based on a determination of pneumoconiosis made under the pr e-Compton regime”).
By its Sunnen decision, the Supreme Court concluded that a taxpayer was not entitled to rely on the collateral estoppel effect of a prior Tax Court judgment to establish, for all time, that certain types of assignments were not taxable to him, notwithstanding that the substantive law had changed since the prior judgment had been rendered. See 333 U.S. at 596-97, 68 S.Ct. 715. In so ruling, the Court observed that “collateral estoppel is a doctrine capable of being applied so as to avoid an undue disparity in the impact of income tax liability.” Id. at 599, 68 S.Ct. 715. And the Court explained that the purpose of collateral estoppel — preventing “repetitious lawsuits over matters which have once been decided and which have remained substantially static, factually and legally” — did not justify creating “vested rights in decisions that have become obsolete or erroneous with time, thereby causing inequities among taxpayers.” Id. Accordingly, the Court held that “a judicial declaration intervening between ... two proceedings may so change the legal atmosphere as to render the rule of collateral estoppel inapplicable.” Id. at 600, 68 S.Ct. 715. The Court explained, however, that “where a question of fact essential to the judgment is actually litigated and determined in the first ... proceeding, the parties are bound by that determination in a subsequent proceeding.” Id. at 601, 68 S.Ct. 715.
Sunnen thus holds that a party is not entitled to rely on the doctrine of collateral estoppel to establish a legal conclusion when the underlying substantive law has materially changed; it does not, however, authorize a party to revisit a question of fact that has been previously determined. See 333 U.S. at 599-601, 68 S.Ct. 715; see also Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. at 161, 99 S.Ct. 970 (explaining that, where there have been no “major changes” in underlying substantive law, “reliance on [Sunnen ] is misplaced”); cf. Morgan v. Dep’t of Energy, 424 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed.Cir.2005) (“Extending the [Sunnen] exception to collateral estoppel to the instant ease, where a party is seeking relitigation of the legal consequence of the very same set of facts as were previously adjudicated, would effectively gut the doctrine of collateral estoppel.”). Rather, a party seeking to avoid the collateral estoppel effect of an earlier factual determination is obliged to make one of two showings: that “the party against whom the doctrine is invoked had a heavier burden of persuasion on that issue in the first [221]*221action than he does in the second, or [that] his adversary has a heavier burden in the second action.” See Newport News Shipbldg., 583 F.2d at 1279. And, as explained above, Mr. Collins, in the 1988 ALJ proceeding, bore the same burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) to establish the same fact (that he had developed pneumoconiosis, as defined in the Act, through his work in the coal mines) in the same manner (through one of the four methods described in § 718.202(a)) as Mrs. Collins bears in the current proceeding. In these circumstances, our unpublished decision in Howard is not persuasive, and we will not accord it precedential value.
Mrs. Collins has thus satisfied the general requirements for collateral estoppel, and the ALJ and the BRB erred in ruling to the contrary.
B.
Additionally, because Mrs. Collins is in the position of a plaintiff who was a non-party to the 1988 ALJ proceeding, we are obliged to assess whether allowing her to rely on the doctrine of offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel might be unfair to Pond Creek. Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s explanation of that doctrine in Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979), we are to analyze four nonexclusive factors in that regard: (1) whether Mrs. Collins could easily have joined in the earlier proceeding, (2) whether Pond Creek “had an incentive in the prior action to have defended the action fully and vigorously”; (3) whether Pond Creek has ever obtained a ruling that Mr. Collins did not suffer from pneumoconiosis; and (4) whether procedural opportunities are available to Pond Creek in the present proceeding that were unavailable to it in the 1988 proceeding. See In re: Microsoft Corp. Antitrust Li-tig., 355 F.3d 322, 326 (4th Cir.2004) (citing Parklane Hosiery, 439 U.S. at 331-32, 99 S.Ct. 645).
An assessment of each of the four Park-lane Hosiery factors discloses that no unfairness will result to Pond Creek from allowing Mrs. Collins to rely on the 1988 ALJ Decision. Mrs. Collins was unable to join Mr. Collins’s 1988 claim for black lung benefits, as spouses of living miners with pneumoconiosis are not entitled to seek benefits under the Act. Moreover, Pond Creek had a strong incentive to fully and vigorously defend the 1988 ALJ proceeding. The Black Lung Act provides that a qualifying widow shall receive benefits “at the rate the deceased miner would have received such benefits if he were totally disabled,’’ see 30 U.S.C. § 922(a)(2), and Pond Creek had the same incentive to defend Mr. Collins’s claim for living miner benefits as it does to defend Mrs. Collins’s claim for survivor’s benefits. Additionally, there has been no finding since the 1988 ALJ Decision that Mr. Collins did not have pneumoconiosis.6 Finally, there are no procedural opportunities currently available to Pond Creek that were unavailable to it during the 1988 ALJ proceedings (which Pond Creek chose not to appeal).
[222]*2222.
Without specifically mentioning the Parklane Hosiery decision or its factors, Pond Creek offers us two reasons why, in its view, a widow seeking survivor’s benefits may not, as a general matter, rely on the collateral estoppel effect of an earlier pneumoconiosis finding in favor of a living miner. First, seeking to rely on our decision in Lisa Lee Mines v. Director, OWCP, 86 F.3d 1358 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc), Pond Creek asserts that “the traditional principles of finality, res judicata, collateral estoppel, and ‘law of the case’ are not applicable to an issue which is an element of entitlement in black lung cases.” Respondent Pond Creek’s Br. at 14. In Lisa Lee Mines, we concluded that, because a miner’s condition may worsen after he has been denied black lung benefits, a prior denial of benefits does not preclude him from initiating a subsequent claim for benefits under the Act. See 86 F.3d at 1362. Pond Creek, however, has not pointed us to any evidence that a miner who has developed pneumoconiosis may somehow be cured of or recover from that disease, and Lisa Lee Mines is therefore inapplicable. Furthermore, we did not hold in Lisa Lee Mines that principles of finality have no place in black lung proceedings, and we decline Pond Creek’s invitation to transform the already burdensome process of black lung litigation into a Sisyphean endeavor.7
Second, Pond Creek contends that, due to the potential availability of some postmortem pathology, a widow should not be permitted to rely on the collateral estoppel effect of a prior pneumoconiosis determination. We should not pause over the absence of post-mortem pathology in the present case, Pond Creek maintains, because, the “[claimant alone makes the decision to obtain or not obtain an autopsy.” Respondent Pond Creek’s Br. at 15 n. 4. In Pond Creek’s view, allowing a coal miner’s widow to rely on the collateral estoppel effect of a living miner’s benefits award would “work a manifest injustice,” by permitting the widow to “decline an autopsy and urge the application of ‘collateral es-toppel,’ [thereby depriving] the liable party of the due process opportunity to conclusively confirm the presence or absence of pneumoconiosis.” Id.
Pond Creek’s concern that a coal miner’s widow might “decline an autopsy and urge the application of ‘collateral estoppel’ ” ignores the fact that a widow cannot succeed in her claim for survivor’s benefits without further establishing that pneumoconiosis hastened her husband’s death. See 20 C.F.R. § 718.205(c)(2) & (5). In so doing, she may desire or need an autopsy. And, of course, if that autopsy conclusively confirmed the absence of pneumoconiosis, it would also show that pneumoconiosis did not hasten- the miner’s death.8
In these circumstances, we agree with the Seventh Circuit that a coal miner’s widow seeking survivor’s benefits under the Black Lung Act may generally rely on the doctrine of offensive nonmutual col[223]*223lateral estoppel to establish that, as a result of his work in the mines, her deceased husband had developed pneumoconiosis. See Zeigler Coal Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 312 F.3d 332, 334 (7th Cir.2002). And, having carefully examined the four Parklane Hosiery factors and Pond Creek’s contentions, allowing Mrs. Collins to rely on offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel would not be unfair to Pond Creek. Accordingly, the ALJ and the BRB erred in permitting Pond Creek to relitigate, in the widow’s proceedings for benefits, the issue of whether Mr. Collins suffered from pneu-moconiosis as a result of his thirty-six years of coal mine employment.9
IV.
Finally, in order to succeed in her claim for survivor’s benefits, Mrs. Collins is obliged to show that Mr. Collins’s death was hastened by pneumoconiosis. See 20 C.F.R. § 718.205(c)(2) & (5). Notably, the ALJ has determined — in a causation ruling affirmed by the BRB — that even assuming Mrs. Collins proved the existence of pneumoconiosis, she failed to establish that the disease hastened her husband’s death. If it were supported by substantial evidence, this causation ruling would be a sufficient alternative ground on which to deny Mrs. Collins’s petition for review. In view of the reason on which the BRB affirmed the ALJ’s ruling, however, we cannot uphold the BRB’s decision.
In rendering his causation ruling, the ALJ rejected the opinions of two physicians for Mrs. Collins as unreasoned and undocumented, and instead relied on the views of seven physicians for Pond Creek — each of whom had opined that Mr. Collins did not suffer from pneumoconiosis at all (much less die due to such disease).10 After criticizing the opinions of Mrs. Collins’s physicians as “cursory,” the ALJ himself cursorily explained his reliance on Pond Creek’s physicians, as follows:
In contrast to the cursory opinions of [Mrs. Collins’s physicians], [Pond Creek’s physicians] provided better reasoned and documented opinions regarding the “death due to pneumoconiosis” issue. Moreover, many of the foregoing physicians explained why their opinions regarding the absence of a role of pneu-moconiosis in the miner’s death would not change, even assuming the presence of radiological evidence of the disease.
2004 ALJ Decision at 14. On appeal to the BRB, Mrs. Collins invoked our decision in Scott v. Mason Coal Co., 289 F.3d 263 (4th Cir.2002), for the proposition that, since she had established the existence of pneumoconiosis, it was improper for the ALJ to rely as he did on the causation opinions of physicians who had failed to diagnose the disease. See Scott, 289 F.3d at 269 (holding that, in wake of finding of pneumoconiosis, ALJ must “provide[ ] specific and persuasive reasons for” relying on causation opinions of physicians who have not diagnosed pneumoconiosis and, even then, can give such opinions “little weight, at the most”). The BRB deemed Scott inapposite and affirmed the ALJ’s causation ruling, concluding that “because the [ALJ] did not find the existence of pneu-moconiosis established in this case, he could properly rely on the causation opin[224]*224ions of physicians who did not diagnose pneumoconiosis.” 2005 BRB Decision at 6.
Of course, the BRB’s decision rested squarely on the ALJ’s finding of no pneu-moconiosis — a finding that we have rejected herein on the ground that Mrs. Collins established the presence of pneumoconio-sis by collateral estoppel. Upon the proper finding of pneumoconiosis, the BRB should have assessed the ALJ’s causation ruling under the standards outlined by our decision in Scott. In that case, the ALJ found that although Scott (a living miner) suffered from pneumoconiosis, he had failed to show that any total disability was caused at least in part by that disease. See Scott, 289 F.3d at 268. For that ruling, the ALJ rejected the causation analysis of a physician who had also opined that Scott was disabled by pneumoconiosis, and instead relied on the contrary opinions of two physicians who had not diagnosed Scott with pneumoconiosis at all. See id. at 267-68. The BRB approved the ALJ’s reliance on the latter physicians, “because both doctors stated that their [causation] opinion would not change if Scott had pneumoconiosis and because both doctors’ opinions were clearly stated, fully documented, and highly persuasive.” Id. at 268.
We, however, reversed the BRB’s decision affirming the ALJ’s causation ruling as not supported by substantial evidence. Writing for the Court, Judge Widener explained that the ALJ could only give weight to the causation opinions of the physicians who had not diagnosed pneumo-coniosis “if he provided specific and persuasive reasons for doing so, and those opinions could carry little weight, at the most.” Scott, 289 F.3d at 269 (citing Toler v. E. Associated Coal Co., 43 F.3d 109 (4th Cir.1995)). In the circumstances of Scott’s case — which seem to compare closely to those presented here — the ALJ’s reasons for crediting the causation opinions of the non-diagnosing physicians were regarded to be insufficient, and the ALJ’s exclusive reliance on those opinions was deemed to be erroneous. See id. We were particularly concerned with the ALJ’s wholesale rejection of the diagnosing physician’s causation opinion and corresponding overreliance on the non-diagnosing physicians’ contrary views. In the compelling words of Judge Widener:
Two opinions that may hold no weight, or at most may hold the little weight allowed by Toler, cannot suffice as substantial evidence to support the ALJ determination that Scott’s [disability] was not caused at least in part by pneu-moconiosis. This is especially true when one causation opinion based on the proper diagnosis, even a poorly documented one, links the disability to pneumoconio-sis.
Id. at 270. Although we remanded with directions to award benefits in Scott, we see the appropriate course here as a remand for further consideration of the causation issue. In that regard, the BRB will have the first opportunity to assess whether the ALJ’s causation ruling meets the rigorous standards outlined in Scott.
V.
Pursuant to the foregoing, we grant Mrs. Collins’s petition for review, vacate the 2005 BRB Decision, and remand for such other and further proceedings as may be appropriate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; ORDER VACATED AND REMANDED.