Island Creek Coal Co. v. OWCP

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: March 6, 2025
• Docket: 24-3244
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0130n.06

Case No. 24-3244

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT FILED Mar 06, 2025 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ) AN ORDER OF THE BENEFITS v. ) REVIEW BOARD, UNITED ) STATES DEPARTMENT OF DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ U.S. ) LABOR COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; DARLENE H. ) ) HUGHES, o/b/o Billy Ray Hughes, decd., ) OPINION ) Respondents. )

BEFORE: SILER, KETHLEDGE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges.

SILER, Circuit Judge. For over a decade, Billy Ray Hughes (“Hughes”) worked in

Kentucky’s coal mines, including as a repairman for Island Creek Coal Company (“Island Creek”).

Hughes filed for disability benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (“the Act”), 30 U.S.C.

§§ 901–45, claiming that he suffered from complicated pneumoconiosis, which would create an

irrebuttable presumption of total disability. Despite an initial denial, a second Administrative Law

Judge (“ALJ”) concluded that computed tomography (“CT”) scan readings revealed a stable lesion

exceeding one centimeter, satisfying the standard for complicated pneumoconiosis. The Benefits

Review Board (“Board”) affirmed. Island Creek contends the ALJ lacked adequate support for

that finding and improperly favored one expert over another. We disagree. Because substantial

evidence supports the ALJ’s determinations, we DENY Island Creek’s petition for review. No. 24-3244, Island Creek Coal Co. v. OWCP, et al.

I.

In 2012, Hughes filed a claim for benefits under the Act, alleging that prolonged coal dust

exposure led to respiratory impairments consistent with pneumoconiosis. Although the district

director initially awarded him benefits, Island Creek challenged Hughes’s entitlement, triggering

a formal hearing before an ALJ. In 2016, ALJ Paul C. Johnson, Jr. denied Hughes’s claim, finding

insufficient evidence of either simple or complicated pneumoconiosis or a totally disabling

respiratory impairment.

Subsequently, Hughes sought modification under 20 C.F.R. § 725.310(a), alleging a

“mistake in determination of fact” and presenting newly obtained CT scan interpretations from

2014 to 2021. The critical new evidence came from Dr. James Brandon Crum, a board-certified

radiologist and B Reader with specialized research on progressive massive fibrosis in coal miners.

Dr. Crum identified a stable 1.1 centimeter nodule in Hughes’s left lung across multiple scans.

Based on the nodule’s size, stability, and lack of calcification, Dr. Crum concluded it indicated

complicated pneumoconiosis rather than an infection or cancer. In response, Island Creek

presented CT interpretations from Dr. Danielle Seaman, a board-certified radiologist with

advanced cardiothoracic imaging fellowships. She measured the lesion at only five to eight

millimeters and found no other evidence of complicated pneumoconiosis.

ALJ John P. Sellers, III held a telephonic hearing in 2022. The record included prior x-

rays, new CT scans, and treatment records—many from hospital radiologists screening for cancer

rather than black lung. Subsequently, ALJ Sellers granted Hughes’s modification request. While

adopting ALJ Johnson’s finding of only 10.21 years of qualifying coal mine employment, ALJ

Sellers concluded the CT scan evidence established complicated pneumoconiosis. The ALJ

2 No. 24-3244, Island Creek Coal Co. v. OWCP, et al.

credited Dr. Crum’s detailed analysis and omission of alternative causes over Dr. Seaman’s less

extensive explanations.

The Board affirmed, holding that the ALJ adequately weighed the CT scan evidence and

explained his reasons for crediting Dr. Crum. The Board noted that Island Creek had not

specifically challenged the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Seaman’s readings were insufficiently explained

or “that the CT scan evidence outweighs the contrary x-ray and medical opinion evidence.” During

these proceedings, Hughes died in 2023, and his widow continued his claim for survivor’s

benefits. Island Creek then filed a petition for review in this court.

II.

We review the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and examine whether the Board properly

applied the deferential “substantial evidence” test to the ALJ’s findings. Island Creek Coal Co. v.

Bryan, 937 F.3d 738, 754–55 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing Island Creek Coal Co. v. Wilkerson, 910 F.3d

254, 257 (6th Cir. 2018); 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(3)). “Substantial evidence means such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Bryan, 937 F.3d

at 755 (citation omitted).

III.

The Act provides compensation to coal miners who become totally disabled by

pneumoconiosis arising from coal mine employment. 30 U.S.C. § 901(a); 20 C.F.R. § 718.1.

Pneumoconiosis includes both “simple” and “complicated” forms. 20 C.F.R. § 718.304. A finding

of complicated pneumoconiosis—sometimes referred to as progressive massive fibrosis—triggers

an irrebuttable presumption of total disability. 20 C.F.R. § 718.304; 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(3). One

may demonstrate complicated pneumoconiosis by x-ray evidence of one or more large opacities

3 No. 24-3244, Island Creek Coal Co. v. OWCP, et al.

greater than one centimeter or by “equivalent diagnostic means,” such as CT scans, autopsy, or

biopsy. 20 C.F.R. § 718.304(a)–(c); Gray v. SLC Coal Co., 176 F.3d 382, 389 (6th Cir. 1999).

A miner may seek modification of a denial by showing either “a change in conditions” or

“a mistake in a determination of fact.” 20 C.F.R. § 725.310(a); Consolidation Coal Co. v. Worrell,

27 F.3d 227, 230 (6th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). The ALJ must consider all relevant evidence—

both old and new—during this de novo review. See id.; O’Keeffe v. Aerojet-Gen. Shipyards, Inc.,

404 U.S. 254, 256 (1971).

IV.

Island Creek contends that the ALJ’s determination of complicated pneumoconiosis was

not supported by substantial evidence because (1) the ALJ failed to adequately consider and

discuss all relevant evidence, including hospital CT scans showing smaller nodule measurements

and (2) the ALJ erred in crediting Dr. Crum’s qualifications over Dr. Seaman’s in interpreting CT

scans. Neither argument warrants reversal.

A.

Dr. Crum identified a stable 1.1 centimeter nodule across multiple scans, noted its

noncalcified appearance, and explained why these characteristics, combined with Hughes’s coal

dust exposure, were more consistent with complicated pneumoconiosis than cancer or infection.

The ALJ provided three reasons for crediting Dr. Crum’s CT scan readings over Dr. Seaman’s:

(1) Dr. Crum’s specialized experience with black lung disease, (2) the superior detail and

explanation in his readings, and (3) consistency with treatment records. Each reason is supported

by substantial evidence.

4 No. 24-3244, Island Creek Coal Co. v. OWCP, et al.

First, Island Creek challenges the ALJ’s assessment of the experts’ qualifications, arguing

Dr. Crum’s curriculum vitae does not demonstrate superior expertise in CT interpretation.1 This

argument mischaracterizes the ALJ’s finding and ignores the other valid reasons given for

crediting Dr. Crum’s opinion.

The ALJ did not find Dr. Crum generally more qualified to read CT scans. Rather, he

found Dr. Crum’s specific research and experience with coal workers’ pneumoconiosis gave him

“superior qualifications when it comes to identifying the presence of complicated

pneumoconiosis.” This finding is supported by Dr. Crum’s documented research and work with

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health studying black lung disease.2 As we

have observed, we tend not to reweigh credibility determinations when the ALJ’s decision is

reasonable. See Young v. Island Creek Coal Co., 947 F.3d 399, 408 (6th Cir. 2020) (citing Big

Branch Res., Inc. v. Ogle, 737 F.3d 1063, 1072 (6th Cir. 2013)).

More importantly, the ALJ did not rest his decision solely on qualifications. Island Creek

does not challenge the ALJ’s finding that Dr. Crum’s analysis was “more detailed” and better

explained than Dr. Seaman’s. As the ALJ noted, while Dr. Seaman identified nodules but

concluded they were not pneumoconiosis, she “provided no explanation for how she reached this

conclusion and provided no alternate etiology for the nodule.” In contrast, Dr. Crum provided

detailed explanations for why the nodule represented complicated pneumoconiosis rather than

other conditions, discussing its stability over time and lack of calcification. This alone provides

1 The Board declined to address Island Creek’s challenge to the ALJ’s finding about Dr. Crum’s superior qualifications, concluding that “any error in reaching that finding is harmless” because the ALJ’s other reasons for crediting Dr. Crum were sufficient. 2 Island Creek also criticizes the ALJ for referencing Dr. Crum’s publications, which were not formally admitted. This reliance was peripheral. See Dixie Fuel Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 820 F.3d 833, 846 (6th Cir. 2016) (ALJ may take official notice of publicly available medical publications).

5 No. 24-3244, Island Creek Coal Co. v. OWCP, et al.

substantial evidence supporting the ALJ’s decision to credit Dr. Crum. See Island Creek Coal Co.

v. Maynard, 87 F.4th 802, 811 (6th Cir. 2023) (credibility determinations based on detail and

reasoning of medical opinions are for the ALJ to make).

Third, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Dr. Crum’s readings aligned

with the treatment records. While Island Creek points to some treatment CT scans measuring

nodules under one centimeter, other scans showed larger measurements. The ALJ reasonably

credited Dr. Crum’s detailed explanation of why some treatment readings may have understated

the mass’s size due to quality issues. We cannot reweigh this evidence. See Big Branch Res., 737

F.3d at 1074.

B.

Island Creek argues that the ALJ failed to satisfy the statutory mandate to consider “all

relevant evidence,” particularly certain treatment records reflecting nodules less than a centimeter.3

The record shows otherwise.

The ALJ conducted a thorough analysis of the medical evidence, discussing x-rays, CT

scans, medical opinions, and treatment records. It is clear that the ALJ acknowledged the hospital

scans, as he noted they were primarily taken for malignancy screening purposes and thus did not

conclusively address pneumoconiosis. The ALJ also accepted Dr. Crum’s rationale that

suboptimal imaging factors or variations in measurement technique could yield smaller readings.

While the ALJ may not have specifically discussed every piece of evidence, he was not

required to do so. See Big Branch Res., 737 F.3d at 1072. The decision reflects careful

3 The Board’s decision states: Island Creek “does not identify any treatment record CT scan in which the radiologist identified the left lung mass as less than one centimeter.” Island Creek insists that it did identify the relevant exhibits—albeit in general references—so it was error to treat the matter as unpreserved. Regardless of any alleged procedural shortcomings, the ALJ’s own approach moots this concern. See Dixie Fuel Co., 820 F.3d at 843–44.

6 No. 24-3244, Island Creek Coal Co. v. OWCP, et al.

consideration of the conflicting evidence and provides a rational explanation for crediting Dr.

Crum’s interpretation. No more is required. See Jericol Mining, Inc. v. Napier, 301 F.3d 703, 712

(6th Cir. 2002).

The petition for review is DENIED.