David Warfe v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

41 F.3d 1505, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 38952, 1994 WL 678487
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedDecember 6, 1994
Docket93-2443
StatusUnpublished

This text of 41 F.3d 1505 (David Warfe v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor) 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
David Warfe v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 41 F.3d 1505, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 38952, 1994 WL 678487 (4th Cir. 1994).

Opinion

41 F.3d 1505

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
David WARFE, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United
States Department of Labor, Respondent.

No. 93-2443.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued Sept. 26, 1994.
Decided Dec. 6, 1994.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (87-297-BLA)

ARGUED: Hudson Branham, HUDSON BRANHAM, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioner. Barry H. Joyner, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Thomas S. Williamson, Jr., Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate Solicitor, Patricia M. Nece, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Edward Waldman, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Ben. Rev. Bd.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED.

Before RUSSELL and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and CHASANOW, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The petitioner is the child of a deceased miner. He has claimed that his father worked in the coal mines for over twenty-five years and died from pneumoconiosis. The petitioner filed a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 901 et seq., which was denied in 1972 and then again in 1978. After the denial of benefits in 1978, the case was referred to an administrative law judge ("the ALJ") who also denied benefits. The petitioner appealed after the Benefits Review Board affirmed the ALJ's denial of his claim.

The petitioner, David Warfe, was born in 1939 to Wayne Warfe and Mary Hamilton. He was disabled mentally and physically from birth. His father was a miner whose coal mine employment ended in April 1948 following a stroke. His father died on February 28, 1969.

David Warfe filed a claim for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act on November 27, 1972. That claim was denied by the Social Security Administration. On November 13, 1978, the petitioner exercised his right to have the Department of Labor reexamine his claim, but it was again denied. On petitioner's request, the claim was then referred by the Department of Labor to the Office of Administrative Law Judges, where benefits were again denied. The ALJ, Reno E. Bonfanti, found that the miner had worked in the coal mines for four years, between 1944 and 1948. He rejected the petitioner's claim that the miner had worked twenty-five to twenty-eight years in the mines, and found that the existence of pneumoconiosis had not been established. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the denial of benefits, and the petitioner has appealed.

The court reviews decisions of the Board under the same standard as that by which the Board reviews the decision of the ALJ. Walker v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 927 F.2d 181, 183 (4th Cir.1991). The court reviews de novo the ALJ's decisions of law, and decides whether there is substantial evidence on the record as a whole supporting the ALJ's decision. Id.; Thorn v. Itmann Coal Co., 3 F.3d 713, 718 (4th Cir.1993); Pendleton v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 882 F.2d 101, 102 (4th Cir.1989).

If the petitioner could show twenty-five years or more of coal mine service by his father before June 30, 1971, he would receive the benefit of a presumption under 30 U.S.C. Sec. 921(c)(5) and 20 C.F.R. Sec. 727.204, which provides that eligible survivors of a miner (who died on or before March 1, 1978) will receive the payment of benefits "unless it is established that at the time of his or her death such miner was not partially or totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis." 30 U.S.C. Sec. 921(c)(5). The Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs ("the Director") has conceded that if the petitioner can show twenty-five years of coal mine employment, the Director will not be able to rebut the presumption under 30 U.S.C. Sec. 921(c)(5) and David Warfe will receive an award of benefits.

The Director has agreed with the petitioner that the ALJ did not fully review and discuss the evidence presented in the hearing on the length of coal mine employment and did not adequately explain the reasons for his findings. The only evidence of the length of coal mine service in the case was the hearsay testimony of Kenneth, another son of the miner, which the ALJ chose not to credit because it was uncorroborated. The Director maintains that even uncorroborated hearsay may "constitute substantial evidence where it carries some indicia of trustworthiness or some assurance of its probative value and reliability." The ALJ, however, dismissed the testimony merely because it was unsubstantiated hearsay, without considering its reliability.

While consideration of the petitioner's evidence concerning length of coal mine service might still result in denial of his claim for benefits, the Director has recommended that we vacate the ALJ's decision on length of coal mine employment and remand for factual findings on that issue. We so rule, but still must consider the petitioner's claim, contested by the Director, that even if he is not entitled to the benefit of the presumption, he has still shown that his father died of pneumoconiosis and is therefore entitled to benefits.

The ALJ found that the x-ray evidence in the case did not establish the existence of pneumoconiosis. The only x-ray presented was one from May 26, 1967 which was read by Dr. Joseph M. Straughan for Dr. C. Jane Toothman, the miner's treating physician. Dr. Toothman diagnosed fibrosis, bronchitis, arteriosclerosis, and emphysema in 1967. In 1986, Dr. Straughan reviewed his own 1967 report of the x-ray and noted that the phrase used in the report, "reticular pattern of densities," could mean nodular fibrosis extending beyond the hilar margins. However, Dr. Jon P. Pitman also reviewed the 1967 report and stated that the phrase "reticular pattern of densities" could indicate a normal chest radiograph or one with minimal fibrosis. He also stated that the report did not use ILO classification, and that unless the study could be compared with ILO standards, it could not be evaluated adequately. Another expert, Dr. Richard A. Elmer, came to the same conclusions as Dr. Pitman. The ALJ credited the findings of Drs. Elmer and Pitman and ruled that the x-ray did not establish pneumoconiosis.

The petitioner has argued that the ALJ's interpretation of the evidence concerning the x-ray was not rational. He has pointed out that there is an inconsistency in the medical reports of one of the doctors on whom the ALJ depended, Dr. Pitman.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
41 F.3d 1505, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 38952, 1994 WL 678487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-warfe-v-director-office-of-workers-compensation-programs-united-ca4-1994.