Elmer Elliott v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, and Savoy Coal Company

Sixth Circuit

Elmer Elliott v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, and Savoy Coal Company

821 F.2d 649, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 8153, 1987 WL 37849

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJune 26, 1987

Docket86-3234

StatusUnpublished

This text of 821 F.2d 649 (Elmer Elliott v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, and Savoy Coal Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elmer Elliott v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, and Savoy Coal Company, 821 F.2d 649, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 8153, 1987 WL 37849 (6th Cir. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

821 F.2d 649

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Elmer ELLIOTT, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and Savoy Coal
Company, Respondent.

No. 86-3234.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 26, 1987.

Before JONES and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals the decision of the Benefits Review Board affirming the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) denial of black lung benefits. We affirm.

Claimant was born July 12, 1923, is not married, and has no dependents. Having worked in the coal industry for more than twenty years, he filed his application for black lung benefits in 1980. Although X-ray evidence reveals that he suffers from pneumoconiosis, the ALJ found that he was not totally disabled as a result of the disease and denied benefits. Because one doctor, Dr. W.F. Clarke, concluded that he is totally and permanently disabled, claimant contends that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

We are satisfied that the ALJ's discrediting of Dr. Clarke's opinion is not irrational and is amply supported by the evidence in this case. Dr. Clarke's report did not comply with the requirements set forth in 20 C.F.R. Sec. 718.103(c). And, moreover, the doctor's opinion was based on pulmonary function studies, the results of which appear rather anomolous in light of two contemporaneous studies yielding results well in excess of the applicable standards for disability. Sec. 718.204(c). As a result, we find the ALJ's decision to deny benefits supported by substantial evidence. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).

AFFIRMED.

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

821 F.2d 649

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(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 Sixth Circuit.
Elmer ELLIOTT, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and Savoy Coal
Company, Respondent.

No. 86-3234.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

June 26, 1987.

Before JONES and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals the decision of the Benefits Review Board affirming the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) denial of black lung benefits. We affirm.

Claimant was born July 12, 1923, is not married, and has no dependents. Having worked in the coal industry for more than twenty years, he filed his application for black lung benefits in 1980. Although X-ray evidence reveals that he suffers from pneumoconiosis, the ALJ found that he was not totally disabled as a result of the disease and denied benefits. Because one doctor, Dr. W.F. Clarke, concluded that he is totally and permanently disabled, claimant contends that the ALJ's decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

We are satisfied that the ALJ's discrediting of Dr. Clarke's opinion is not irrational and is amply supported by the evidence in this case. Dr. Clarke's report did not comply with the requirements set forth in 20 C.F.R. Sec. 718.103(c). And, moreover, the doctor's opinion was based on pulmonary function studies, the results of which appear rather anomolous in light of two contemporaneous studies yielding results well in excess of the applicable standards for disability. Sec. 718.204(c). As a result, we find the ALJ's decision to deny benefits supported by substantial evidence. Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

821 F.2d 649, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 8153, 1987 WL 37849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elmer-elliott-v-director-office-of-workers-compens-ca6-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack