Potomac Coal Company v. DOWCP

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 6, 2025
• Docket: 23-2207
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-2207 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 1 of 12

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-2207

POTOMAC COAL COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; VIRGINIA STRAWSER, on behalf of Richard D. Strawser,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (22-0344 BLA)

Submitted: April 11, 2025 Decided: August 6, 2025

Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition for review denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: William S. Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Petitioner. Heath M. Long, Matthew A. Gribler, PAWLOWSKI, BILONIC & LONG, Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2207 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 2 of 12

PER CURIAM:

Potomac Coal Company (“Potomac”) petitions for review of a decision of the

Benefits Review Board (“the “BRB”) affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”)

award of benefits to Virginia Strawser (“Claimant”), the widow of miner Richard Strawser

(“Strawser”), under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944. We deny the

petition for review.

I.

In order to establish eligibility for black lung benefits, a miner is required to show:

“(1) that he has pneumoconiosis, in either its clinical or legal form; (2) that the

pneumoconiosis arose out of coal mine employment; (3) that he is totally disabled by a

pulmonary or respiratory impairment; and (4) that his pneumoconiosis is a substantially

contributing cause of his total disability.” W. Va. CWP Fund v. Bender, 782 F.3d 129, 133

(4th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up).

Relevant here, the Black Lung Act allows for “an irrebuttable presumption that a

miner is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis, that a miner’s death was due to

pneumoconiosis or that a miner was totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis at the time of

death” if the claimant can produce: (a) a chest x-ray showing one or more large opacities

in the lungs greater than one centimeter in diameter; (b) a biopsy or autopsy showing

massive lung lesions; or (c) a diagnosis by other means showing a condition that reasonably

would be expected to yield the results described under (a) or (b). 20 C.F.R. § 718.304.

“The condition described by these criteria is frequently referred to as complicated

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2207 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 3 of 12

pneumoconiosis, although that term does not appear in the [Act].” E. Associated Coal

Corp. v. DOWCP, 220 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2000) (cleaned up).

Strawser had a minimum of 33 years of underground coal mine employment. He

retired in September 1996. He filed this subsequent claim for black lung benefits in

October 2019. 1 Dr. Charles Werntz performed the Medical History and Examination on

behalf of the Department of Labor in November 2019 and determined that Strawser

suffered from simple pneumoconiosis due to his coal mine employment. Of particular

relevance here, Strawser had three chest x-rays performed on December 29, 2014;

November 18, 2019; and September 9, 2020. He also had a computerized tomography

(“CT”) scan of his lungs performed on March 1, 2021. Unfortunately, Strawser died on

December 5, 2021, before a hearing could be held, and Claimant pursued the claim on

behalf of his estate. On January 13, 2021, the District Director issued a Proposed Decision

and Order awarding benefits. At Potomac’s request, a hearing was held before the ALJ on

February 4, 2022. On April 29, 2022, the ALJ issued a decision and order awarding

benefits. With regard to the irrebuttable presumption, the ALJ addressed the evidence

presented under each prong of § 718.304 for which relevant evidence was presented.

The ALJ first considered the chest x-ray evidence. See 20 C.F.R. § 718.304(a). The

ALJ was presented with four readings of the three chest x-rays. Dr. Robert Tarver

1 Strawser filed his first claim for black lung benefits in September 2014, but the claim was denied by the District Director in May 2015 for failure to prove total disability due to pneumoconiosis. Strawser did not request a hearing. Accordingly, Claimant was required, in this proceeding, to show that “one of the applicable conditions of entitlement” had “changed since the date upon which the order denying the prior claim became final.” 20 C.F.R. § 725.309(c). By virtue of the irrebuttable presumption, she has done so. 3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2207 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 4 of 12

interpreted the December 2014 and November 2019 x-rays as positive for simple

pneumoconiosis. Dr. James Benjamin interpreted the November 2019 x-ray as positive for

simple pneumoconiosis. And Dr. Gregory Fino interpreted the September 2020 x-ray as

positive for simple pneumoconiosis. None of the x-rays were read as positive for

complicated pneumoconiosis. Accordingly, the ALJ found that Claimant failed to establish

the existence of complicated pneumoconiosis under the first prong of § 718.304. Because

no biopsy or autopsy evidence was submitted to the ALJ for consideration, Claimant also

failed to satisfy the second prong of § 718.304.

Turning to the third prong of § 718.304, the ALJ considered three readings of the

CT scan that was performed on March 1, 2021. The scan was read by Dr. Kathleen

DePonte, Dr. Tarver, and Dr. Fino. Dr. DePonte and Dr. Tarver agreed that CT scans are

medically acceptable and relevant to establishing the existence of complicated

pneumoconiosis. Dr. DePonte stated that a “CT is beneficial in confirming or denying the

presence of simple coal worker’s pneumoconiosis and can be beneficial in recognizing

simple and complicated coal worker’s pneumoconiosis when it is not evident on the routine

chest x-rays.” J.A. 95. Dr. Tarver similarly reported that a “[c]hest CT scan is more

sensitive than chest x-ray for detection and characterization for pulmonary parenchymal

abnormalities” and “may be useful in confirming or denying the presence of simple coal

workers’ pneumoconiosis, as well as documenting the presence of complicated coal

workers’ pneumoconiosis when not well demonstrated on routine chest xrays.” J.A. 111.

In her report of April 27, 2021, Dr. DePonte noted “[f]ine nodular opacities with

coalescence consistent with simple coal worker’s pneumoconiosis” and “[b]ilateral large

4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2207 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 5 of 12

opacities consistent with Category A large opacities of complicated coal workers’

pneumoconiosis.” J.A. 94. Specifically, Dr. DePonte observed a large opacity measuring

13 mm in the right upper lobe and a large opacity measuring 11 mm in the left upper lobe.

Dr. DePonte stated that “[t]he large opacities would measure similar in size and greater

than one centimeter on a standard chest [x-ray].” J.A. 95.

After Strawser’s death and just prior to the hearing, Dr. Tarver and Dr. Fino provided

additional readings of the CT scan to Potomac’s attorney. Like Dr. DePonte, Dr. Fino

observed “fine nodular densities . . . throughout the lungs consistent with simple

pneumoconiosis.” J.A. 113. Dr. Fino also observed a 14 mm abnormality in the left upper

lobe of the miner’s lung but could not “distinguish [it] as being either complicated coal

workers’ pneumoconiosis or a pseudo-plaque.” J.A. 113. Therefore, he could not “rule out

complicated coal workers’ pneumoconiosis.” J.A. 113.

In a departure from his interpretation of Strawser’s prior chest x-rays (which he read

as positive for simple pneumoconiosis), Dr. Tarver found “no small nodules or large masses

consistent with [simple or complicated] coal workers’ pneumoconiosis” on the CT scan.

J.A. 111. He observed two 6-mm nodules in the right lung. It was his impression that the

CT findings were “most consistent with interstitial fibrosis” and that there were “no CT

findings consistent with coal workers’ pneumoconiosis.” J.A. 111.

Weighing the strength of the varied opinions, the ALJ first noted that only Drs.

DePonte and Tarver made specific findings as to the existence (or not) of complicated

pneumoconiosis. And they reached opposite conclusions—Dr. DePonte found complicated

pneumoconiosis (as well as simple pneumoconiosis); Dr. Tarver found neither. Dr. Fino’s

5 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2207 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 6 of 12

opinion was supportive of the presence of simple pneumoconiosis but was of limited help

on the question of complicated pneumoconiosis. Although he observed a large (greater

than 1 cm) abnormality in the left upper lobe, he did not definitively say that it represented

complicated pneumoconiosis. Therefore, the ALJ assigned little weight to the opinion of

Dr. Fino as to complicated pneumoconiosis.

Turning to the other two readings, the ALJ found Dr. DePonte’s opinion to be well-

reasoned and well-documented and assigned it greater weight on the issue of complicated

pneumoconiosis. The ALJ found that Dr. DePonte had made specific findings and

explained why she concluded that the large opacities in the right and left lungs were

consistent with complicated pneumoconiosis. Dr. Tarver’s opinion, in contrast, was not

well-reasoned or well-documented. In particular, the ALJ observed that Dr. Tarver’s

opinion was “incomplete” because, while he “noted [the] abnormalities in the right upper

lobe,” he did “not address the abnormal finding in the left upper lobe.” J.A. 134-35.

Having weighed the evidence, the ALJ found that Claimant had shown the existence of

complicated pneumoconiosis, was entitled to the irrebuttable presumption of total

disability due to pneumoconiosis under § 718.304, and had established that Strawser’s

pneumoconiosis arose out of his coal mine employment.

The ALJ also found that Claimant met her burden of showing that Strawser suffered

from simple pneumoconiosis. On this point, the ALJ credited the opinions of Drs. DePonte

and Fino, as well as the opinion of Dr. Werntz, as well-reasoned, well-documented and

entitled to greater weight. The ALJ discounted Dr. Tarver’s conclusion that Strawser did

6 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2207 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 7 of 12

not have simple pneumoconiosis, finding it to be conclusory and not well-reasoned or well-

documented.

Potomac appealed the award of benefits to the BRB, challenging the ALJ’s finding

that Claimant had established that Strawser suffered from complicated pneumoconiosis and

was entitled to the irrebuttable presumption of total disability. The BRB rejected these

challenges and affirmed the award of benefits. 2 Potomac now petitions for review of the

agency decisions.

II.

A.

Our review of agency decisions “is highly deferential.” W. Va. CWP Fund v.

DOWCP, 880 F.3d 691, 697 (4th Cir. 2018). “We review the findings of the ALJ, as

affirmed by the Board, to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence and in

accordance with the law.” Am. Energy, LLC v. DOWCP, 106 F.4th 319, 330 (4th Cir. 2024)

(cleaned up). In doing so, we “consider whether all of the relevant evidence has been

analyzed and whether the ALJ has sufficiently explained his rationale in crediting certain

evidence.” Hobet Mining, LLC v. Epling, 783 F.3d 498, 504 (4th Cir. 2015) (cleaned up).

2 Although Claimant proved the existence of simple pneumoconiosis, the ALJ found that Claimant was not entitled to invoke the rebuttable presumption of total disability, see 20 C.F.R. § 718.305, because she had failed to establish that Strawser had a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment, see 20 C.F.R. § 718.204. The BRB affirmed, as unchallenged on appeal, the ALJ’s finding that Strawser had 33 years of underground coal mine employment and had simple pneumoconiosis. Claimant, however, did not appeal the ALJ’s finding that she was not entitled to the § 718.305 rebuttable presumption of total disability.

7 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2207 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 8 of 12

If the “ALJ has incorrectly weighed the evidence or failed to account for relevant record

evidence, deference is not warranted and remand is frequently required.” Sea “B” Mining

Co. v. Addison, 831 F.3d 244, 253 (4th Cir. 2016). We do not, however, “undertake to

reweigh contradictory medical evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute our

judgment for that [of the ALJ].” Id. at 252. “[I]t is the province of the ALJ to evaluate the

physicians’ opinions. As trier of fact, the ALJ is not bound to accept the opinion or theory

of any medical expert.” Island Creek Coal Co. v. Compton, 211 F.3d 203, 211 (4th Cir.

2000) (cleaned up). Rather, the “ALJ must examine the reasoning employed in a medical

opinion in light of the objective material supporting that opinion, and also must take into

account any contrary test results or diagnoses.” Id.

B.

Potomac argues that the ALJ erred in finding that Claimant established the existence

of complicated pneumoconiosis and was entitled to the irrebuttable presumption of total

disability. Potomac does not directly assert that substantial evidence fails to support this

finding. Rather, Potomac attacks the ALJ’s weighing of the medical evidence and his

explanation of his decision. Specifically, Potomac argues that the ALJ failed to (1) properly

weigh the x-ray evidence against the CT scan evidence and resolve the “conundrum”

presented when the chest x-rays failed to show the large opacity observed on the CT scan;

and (2) failed to provide an adequate explanation for why Dr. DePonte’s opinion was

credited over Dr. Tarver’s reading. We disagree.

Claimant was entitled to establish the irrebuttable presumption of total disability

through any of the three qualifying forms of evidence: (a) chest x-ray; (b) autopsy or

8 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2207 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 9 of 12

biopsy; or (c) a diagnosis through other means that shows a condition that reasonably

would be expected to yield the results described in (a)—i.e., an opacity greater than one

centimeter in diameter. See 20 C.F.R. § 718.304. The three diagnostic methods are “stated

in the disjunctive.” Eastern, 220 F.3d at 256. The ALJ must review the evidence under

each prong of [the regulation] for which evidence is presented to determine whether

complicated pneumoconiosis is present.” Id. But the “finding of statutory complicated

pneumoconiosis may be based on evidence presented under a single prong.” Id.

That is what happened here. The ALJ considered all of the evidence presented under

each of the prongs. The x-rays were not read by any physician as showing a lesion in

excess of one centimeter, but the CT scan was read by a qualified physician as showing

two opacities in excess of one centimeter in diameter. No one asserts that a CT scan cannot

qualify as other means of diagnosis or that it is an inferior diagnostic tool. On the contrary,

Dr. DePonte and Dr. Tarver agreed that CT scans are particularly useful in documenting

the presence of complicated pneumoconiosis when it is not well demonstrated on routine

chest x-rays. Accordingly, we see no error in the ALJ’s weighing of the x-ray evidence and

the CT scan evidence. The x-ray readings, which preceded the CT scan, simply do not

undermine the ALJ’s conclusion that the third prong of § 718.304 was satisfied by the CT

scan reading by Dr. DePonte.

We also reject Potomac’s argument that the ALJ provided an inadequate explanation

for crediting Dr. DePonte’s opinion over Dr. Tarver’s opinion on the issue of complicated

pneumoconiosis. An ALJ must include an “adequate explanation” for his decision, but it

“can be a succinct one.” Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. Owens, 724 F.3d 550, 557 (4th Cir.

9 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2207 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 10 of 12

2013) (cleaned up). “If we understand what the ALJ did and why he did it, we, and the

APA, are satisfied.” Lane Hollow Coal Co. v. DOWCP, 137 F.3d 799, 803 (4th Cir. 1998).

Both Dr. DePonte and Dr. Tarver are Board-certified radiologists and B-readers. 3

Dr. Fino is Board-certified in internal medicine with a subspecialty in pulmonary diseases

and is also a B-reader. The ALJ examined and explained the reasoning employed in each

of the three medical opinions, compared the evidence and opinions, and explained why and

how he credited the opinions of Dr. DePonte and Dr. Fino over the opinion of Dr. Tarver.

Drs. DePonte and Fino both observed fine nodular opacities consistent with simple

pneumoconiosis. Dr. DePonte observed large opacities measuring in excess of 1 cm in

both the right upper lobe and left upper lobe of Strawser’s lung—both of which were

consistent with complicated pneumoconiosis. Dr. DePonte explained why the large

opacities in the right and left lungs were consistent with complicated pneumoconiosis. Dr.

Fino also observed an abnormality in excess of 1 cm in Strawser’s left upper lung, which

he could not rule out as complicated coal worker’s pneumoconiosis. Contrary to Potomac’s

claim, the ALJ did not discount Dr. Fino’s observation that there was a large abnormality

in Strawser’s left upper lobe. He discounted Dr. Fino’s opinion as to complicated

pneumoconiosis only because Dr. Fino stated that he could not rule out the diagnosis. The

3 Like the BRB, we also summarily reject Potomac’s claim that the ALJ erred because he did not consider Dr. Tarver to be “better” qualified than Dr. DePonte. It is undisputed that Dr. DePonte and Dr. Tarver are dually qualified as B readers and Board- certified radiologists, and the ALJ was not required to assign greater weight to Dr. Tarver because he is also a published professor.

10 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2207 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 11 of 12

ALJ specifically credited Dr. Fino’s opinion, as well as Dr. DePonte’s and others, as to the

presence of simple pneumoconiosis.

With regard to Dr. Tarver, the ALJ discounted his opinion as to the presence of both

simple and complicated pneumoconiosis. The ALJ explained that Dr. Tarver’s opinion that

Strawser did not have even simple pneumoconiosis was conclusory, not well-reasoned or

well-documented, and entitled to less weight. With regard to the existence of complicated

pneumoconiosis, the ALJ discounted Dr. Tarver’s opinion as “incomplete” because he

failed to address the abnormal finding in the left upper lobe. Again, that abnormality was

observed by both Dr. DePonte and Dr. Fino.

To conclude, we hold that it was well within the ALJ’s discretion to reject the

conclusory opinion of Dr. Tarver in favor of the more specific opinion of Dr. DePonte. The

weighing of such contradictory medical evidence rests with the ALJ, and we will not

substitute our judgment for his. Sea “B” Mining, 831 F.3d at 252. The ALJ’s explanation

for crediting the opinion of Dr. DePonte over the opinion of Dr. Tarver was sufficient and,

for the reasons set forth above, we have no trouble discerning what the ALJ did and why

he did it. 4

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the ALJ’s and BRB’s decisions are

based upon substantial evidence and are without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

4 Potomac additionally argues that the BRB erred in holding that any error in the ALJ’s explanation was harmless. Although we do not disagree with the BRB’s conclusion in this regard, we need not reach the question because there was no error.

11 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2207 Doc: 29 Filed: 08/06/2025 Pg: 12 of 12

the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and oral argument

would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED