R.F.I. Energy, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

488 F. App'x 622
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedJuly 17, 2012
Docket10-4068
StatusUnpublished

This text of 488 F. App'x 622 (R.F.I. Energy, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
R.F.I. Energy, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 488 F. App'x 622 (3d Cir. 2012).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

R.F.I. Energy, Inc. (“RFI”) petitions for review of an order by the Benefits Review Board (“Board”) affirming an ALJ’s judgment awarding disability benefits to David C. Elliott pursuant to the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (“BLBA”). We will deny this petition.

I.

David C. Elliott, a former surface miner, filed a claim for benefits on June 25, 2007, claiming he suffers from legal pneumoconi-osis caused by his exposure to coal mine dust. Congress enacted the BLBA to compensate miners who are totally disabled by pneumoconiosis. The regulations define legal pneumoconiosis as any chronic lung disease or impairment arising out of coal-mine employment. 20 C.F.R. § 718.201(a)(2).

In order to recover benefits under the BLBA, a claimant must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) he has pneumoconiosis; (2) it arose from coalmine employment; and (3) it caused him total disability. 20 C.F.R. §§ 718.202-205. Further, if pneumoconiosis arising out of a miner’s coal-mine employment is a substantially contributing cause of his pulmonary or respiratory impairment, then the miner will be considered totally disabled on account of pneumoconiosis, rendering him eligible for benefits. 20 C.F.R. § 718.204(c)(1).

Elliott worked for RFI and its predecessors for over twenty-six years. In 2007, Elliott stopped working at RFI to undergo brain surgery. At a hearing before an ALJ, Elliott testified that he has experienced persistent breathing problems since 2005. Elliott also testified that he smoked about a pack of cigarettes a day for approximately forty years. Three doctors, Drs. Donald Rasmussen, David A. Celko, and Gregory Fino, offered opinions as to Elliott’s condition. All three doctors agreed Elliott suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (“COPD”) that rendered him totally disabled. Drs. Rasmussen and Celko attributed the cause of Elliott’s pulmonary impairment to both cigarette smoke and coal mine dust exposure. Dr. Fino, however, opined that smoking was the sole cause of Elliott’s pulmonary impairment.

The ALJ found that Dr. Rasmussen sufficiently explained and provided sound medical research to support his position that it is impossible to distinguish between the effects of smoking and the effects of coal mine dust exposure because both are toxic exposures that result in the loss of lung function. Further, Dr. Rasmussen concluded that it is not medically justifiable to attribute Elliott’s disability to one factor and not the other. The ALJ thus held that Dr. Rasmussen reasonably opined that the effects of Elliott’s coal mine dust exposure at least in part caused legal pneumoconiosis, which was a substantially contributing cause of Elliott’s totally disabling COPD.

Although the ALJ believed Dr. Celko’s opinion was well explained, the ALJ concluded that he failed to cite any medical research to support his opinion and that he relied on an inflated coal mine employment history of thirty-three years. The ALJ accordingly discredited the opinion of Dr. Celko.

The ALJ acknowledged and reviewed Dr. Fino’s opinion, which attributed Elliott’s impairment exclusively to cigarette smoke. Nevertheless, the ALJ disregard *624 ed Dr. Fino’s report and testimony because he concluded that (1) Dr. Fino’s opinion was stated in general terms; (2) he did not provide a convincing or supportive explanation that coal mine dust did not substantially contribute to Elliott’s impairment; (8) he used x-ray evidence to justify his opinion after stating x-ray evidence alone is insufficient to determine the existence of pneumoconiosis; and (4) his opinion conflicted with Dr. Rasmussen’s well reasoned and well supported opinion.

Among the three doctors, the ALJ found Dr. Rasmussen’s opinion was best reasoned and supported by medical evidence. Therefore, the ALJ credited Dr. Rasmussen’s opinion and discounted the opinions of Dr. Fino and Dr. Celko.

RFI appealed the ALJ’s judgment, and, on August 19, 2010, the Board upheld the ALJ’s ruling in a per curiam decision. The Board affirmed that the ALJ permissibly credited the opinion of Dr. Rasmussen over Dr. Fino’s contrary opinion because substantial evidence in the record established that Elliott had legal pneumo-coniosis, that it arose at least in part out of his coal mine employment, and that it caused Elliott to be totally disabled. RFI then timely petitioned for review.

II.

We have jurisdiction to review this petition pursuant to 80 U.S.C. § 932(a). We review Board decisions for errors of law and adherence to its own standard of review. Lombardy v. Dir., OWCP, 355 F.3d 211, 213 (3d Cir.2004). The Board is bound by the ALJ’s findings of fact if there is substantial evidence in the record to support the result. Id. We independently review the record to determine whether the ALJ’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Kramer, 305 F.3d 203, 207 (3d Cir.2002). Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. If substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s findings, then this Court must accept them, even if we “might have interpreted the evidence differently in the first instance.” Balsavage v. Dir., OWCP, 295 F.3d 390, 395 (3d Cir.2002).

III.

Like the Board, we determine the ALJ’s ruling was supported by substantial evidence in the record and was consistent with applicable legal principles.

RFI argues that the Board erred in affirming the ALJ’s judgment because it was not consistent with applicable law, supported by substantial evidence, or rational. RFI contends that the ALJ’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence because Elliott’s award was based only on an unexplained conclusion that Dr. Rasmussen’s opinions were persuasive, and because the ALJ ignored the other evidence.

In fact, however, a finding of pneumoco-niosis may be made based on a physician’s sound medical judgment and reasoned medical evidence that the miner suffers from pneumoconiosis, even if the x-rays are inconclusive. 20 C.F.R. 718.202(a)(4). The ALJ, on the basis of all the evidence, needs only to be persuaded that pneumo-coniosis is a contributing cause of the miner’s disability. Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v. Summers, 272 F.3d 473, 483 (7th Cir.2001).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
488 F. App'x 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rfi-energy-inc-v-director-office-of-workers-compensation-programs-ca3-2012.