Peabody Coal Company v. Eldon Blankenship

773 F.2d 173, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23230
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedSeptember 19, 1985
Docket83-2399
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 773 F.2d 173 (Peabody Coal Company v. Eldon Blankenship) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Peabody Coal Company v. Eldon Blankenship, 773 F.2d 173, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23230 (7th Cir. 1985).

Opinion

773 F.2d 173

PEABODY COAL COMPANY and Old Republic Companies, Petitioners,
v.
Eldon BLANKENSHIP and Director, Office of Worker's
Compensation Programs, United States Department of
Labor, Respondents.

No. 83-2399.

United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit.

Argued May 29, 1985.
Decided Sept. 19, 1985.

Mark E. Solomons, Kilcullen, Wilson & Kilcullen, Washington, D.C., for petitioners.

Marc P. Weinberg, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., Jeanne K. Beck, Goldenhersh Law Offices, East St. Louis, Ill., for respondents.

Before FLAUM and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges, and WEIGEL, Senior District Judge.*

WEIGEL, Senior District Judge.

Respondent Eldon Blankenship (the "claimant") filed for benefits with respondent Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor (the "Director") under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 901 et seq. (the "Act"). The Act extends benefits to those suffering total disability due to black lung disease. Claimant was awarded benefits, with interest accruing from the date he filed his claim. Petitioners Peabody Coal Company ("Peabody"), the coal mine operator liable for paying these benefits, and Old Republic Insurance Company, Peabody's insurer, bring this petition for review solely on the issue of whether claimant is entitled to prejudgment interest on his award.1

I.

Claimant, a retired coal miner, filed for black lung benefits on April 6, 1977. The Department of Labor assisted him in developing evidence to support his claim. On December 11, 1978, a Department of Labor claims examiner found that claimant was eligible to receive benefits beginning April 1, 1977.2 Peabody, claimant's former employer, was notified that it was liable for making payments, and given the opportunity to dispute the claim and submit additional evidence.

Petitioners controverted the claim and requested an informal conference before a deputy commissioner. On July 6, 1979, the deputy commissioner made an initial determination that claimant was entitled to receive benefits beginning April 1, 1977. See 20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.420. Petitioners were instructed to commence payment within 30 days. Petitioners rejected this determination and requested a formal hearing before an administrative law judge ("ALJ").3 After holding a hearing, the ALJ ordered Peabody to pay claimant benefits beginning April 1, 1977, and interest "from the date upon which each payment was due."

Petitioners appealed the ALJ's decision to the department of Labor's Benefits Review Board (the "Board"). In addition to challenging claimant's eligibility for benefits, petitioners argued that the ALJ erred in awarding claimant interest from April 1, 1977. They maintained that interest on claimant's award should accrue from August 5, 1979 (30 days after the deputy commissioner made his initial determination of eligibility), the date they were required to begin paying benefits. On June 10, 1983, the Board affirmed the ALJ's decision in full. Petitioners bring this petition for review of the Board's order solely on the issue of when interest on claimant's award begins to accrue. Respondent Director joins petitioners in seeking review of the Board's order.

II.

30 U.S.C. Sec. 932(d) provides for interest to accrue if black lung benefits are not paid "within the time required." The Department of Labor's regulations state that:

If an operator or other employer fails or refuses to pay any or all benefits due under the terms of the initial determination by the deputy commissioner (Sec. 725.420) a decision and order filed and served by an administrative law judge (Sec. 725.478) or a decision filed by the Board or a United States court of appeals, ... such operator shall be liable for simple annual interest on all past due benefits computed from the date on which such benefits were due and payable....

20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.608(a). The Director interprets this regulation to require that interest on claimant's award be computed from August 5, 1979, the date petitioners were required to begin paying benefits. The Board interprets this regulation to require that interest on claimant's award be computed from April 1, 1977, the date of claimant's eligibility for benefits. See Kuhar v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 5 B.L.R. 1-765 (March 15, 1983), vacated in relevant part sub nom., Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Director, OWCP, No. 83-3226, slip op. (3d Cir. Aug. 12, 1983).

The Director is vested with authority to administer the Act. See 33 U.S.C. Sec. 932(a); 20 C.F.R. Secs. 701.201, 701.202. Courts should generally defer "to the interpretation given the statute by the officers or agency charged with its administration." Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965). "When the construction of an administrative regulation rather than a statute is at issue, deference is even more clearly in order." Jones v. Illinois Dept. of Rehabilitation Services, 689 F.2d 724, 729 (7th Cir.1982). The Director's interpretation of section 725.608(a) is controlling "unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation." Udall, 380 U.S. at 16, 85 S.Ct. at 801 (quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock Co., 325 U.S. 410, 413, 65 S.Ct. 1215, 1217, 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945)). The Board's interpretation of the Act is "not entitled to any special deference from the courts." Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Director, OWCP, 449 U.S. 268, 278 n. 18, 101 S.Ct. 509, 514 n. 18, 66 L.Ed.2d 446 (1980).

Section 725.608(a) states that an employer is liable for interest on past due benefits "computed from the date on which such benefits were due and payable." The Board felt that benefits were "due and payable" from April 1, 1977, the date claimant was first eligible to receive them. See Kuhar, 5 B.L.R. at 1-778. However, while benefits were payable from April 1, 1977, see 20 C.F.R. Sec. 725.503(b), they were not due until August 5, 1979, the date petitioners were required to begin making payments. See 20 C.F.R. Secs. 725.420(b), 725.522(a). Thus, the Director's interpretation of section 725.608(a) is consistent with the language of that regulation. In contrast, the Board's position is "at odds with the plain meaning of [section 725.608(a) ]." Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Director, OWCP, 766 F.2d 128, 130 (3d Cir. 1985).

III.

As noted above, the Director's interpretation of section 725.608(a) may be rejected if "there are compelling indications that it is wrong." Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 381, 89 S.Ct. 1794, 1802, 23 L.Ed.2d 371 (1969).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
773 F.2d 173, 1985 U.S. App. LEXIS 23230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peabody-coal-company-v-eldon-blankenship-ca7-1985.