Richardson v. DOWCP

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 3, 1996
Docket95-1859
StatusPublished

This text of Richardson v. DOWCP (Richardson v. DOWCP) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Richardson v. DOWCP, (4th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ARLETTE RICHARDSON, widow of Stuart Richardson, Petitioner,

v. No. 95-1859 DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (93-2497-BLA)

Argued: June 5, 1996

Decided: September 3, 1996

Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CURRIE, United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Williams wrote the opinion, in which Judge Motz and Judge Currie joined.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Maureen Hogan Krueger, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, for Petitioner. Christian P. Barber, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Thomas S. Williamson, Jr., Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate Solicitor, Rodger Pitcairn, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge:

Arlette Richardson (Richardson) appeals an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) order denying benefits on her survivor's claim under the Black Lung Benefits Act (the Act), 30 U.S.C.A.§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1996). The Benefits Review Board (BRB) affirmed the denial of benefits, holding that the ALJ had acted within his discretion in rejecting the report of a physician who opined that pneumoconiosis substantially contributed to the death of her husband, a former coal miner. Because we find that the ALJ failed to recognize that legal pneumoconiosis in the form of chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) arising from coal mine employment had been established and omitted from consideration potentially dispositive evidence support- ing Richardson's claim, we reverse and remand to the ALJ for further proceedings.

I.

Before Richardson filed her survivor's claim, Stuart Richardson, her husband and a coal miner for over twelve years, was awarded benefits on his lifetime claim approximately one year after his death in October 1986. In the order awarding benefits, the deputy commis- sioner found that Mr. Richardson had been totally disabled due to legal pneumoconiosis.1 The Director did not contest the deputy com- missioner's award of benefits. See 20 C.F.R.§ 725.419 (1995). _________________________________________________________________ 1 Correspondence from the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs submitted in the proceedings before the ALJ reveals that legal pneumo- coniosis "was proven pursuant to Regulation Section 718.202(a)(i)A by the presence of a chronic pulmonary or respiratory impairment diagnosed in the medical evidence as COPD, COLD, chronic bronchitis and emphy- sema." (J.A. at 116.)

2 Shortly thereafter, proceeding pro se, Richardson filed a survivor's claim, contending that she was entitled to benefits because her hus- band's "death was due to pneumoconiosis." 20 C.F.R. § 718.205(a) (1995). To support her claim before the ALJ, Richardson submitted the report of Dr. Vito Caselnova, a physician who treated Mr. Rich- ardson in two of the four hospitalizations in the final year of his life. In a brief, handwritten report, Dr. Caselnova opined:

It was a well documented fact that the deceased, Mr. Stu- art Richardson suffered from pneumoconiosis as a result of working many years in the underground coal mines.

The pre-existing pneumoconiosis (Black Lung) contrib- uted substantially by leaving his lungs in a severely compro- mised state prior to the onset of pulmonary cancer. In summary, it is a well documented fact that the pneumoconi- osis is a contributing factor markedly hastening the miner's demise.

(J.A. at 24-25.) Accompanying Dr. Caselnova's report were hospital records, including a discharge report prepared by Dr. Caselnova dated July 25, 1986, that noted the presence of COPD.

Additionally, Richardson submitted a discharge report, dated Octo- ber 5, 1986, and death certificate signed by Dr. H. Rizvi, the physi- cian who treated Mr. Richardson during his final two hospitalizations. In the discharge report, Dr. Rizvi noted the presence of COPD, and on the death certificate, he listed metastatic lung cancer and COPD as the causes of Mr. Richardson's death.

Responding to Richardson's contentions, the Director offered into evidence the report of Dr. Leon Cander, a consultant for the Depart- ment of Labor. After reviewing the medical records, Dr. Cander con- cluded that Mr. Richardson's death was attributable solely to lung cancer:

Although disabling pneumoconiosis, as defined by the Act, has been adjudicated to be present, there is no evidence that Mr. Richardson's chronic obstructive lung disease was a

3 contributing cause or factor leading to Mr. Richardson's death. There is no evidence that a complication of pneumo- coniosis was present which caused Mr. Richardson's death.

(J.A. at 23.)

The ALJ denied benefits on Richardson's survivor claim, conclud- ing that Dr. Caselnova's report was not reasoned or documented. The ALJ concluded that Dr. Caselnova's report was unreasoned because Dr. Caselnova never linked Mr. Richardson's COPD with his coal mine employment to establish the existence of legal pneumoconiosis.2 See 20 C.F.R. § 718.201 (1995) (defining legal pneumoconiosis in part as "any chronic pulmonary disease resulting in respiratory or pul- monary impairment significantly related to, or substantially aggra- vated by, dust exposure in coal mine employment"). Additionally, the _________________________________________________________________ 2 Much confusion in this case stems from the failure of counsel and witnesses to specify, when they use the term "pneumoconiosis," whether they are referring to legal or clinical pneumoconiosis, and from the fail- ure of the ALJ to resolve the conflict when this ambiguity arises in the record. To make an accurate assessment of whether the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence, see Jewell Smokeless Coal Corp. v. Street, 42 F.3d 241, 243 (4th Cir. 1994), the litigants and the ALJ alike must cooperate to provide a record free from this ambiguity. As we have observed, clinical pneumoconiosis is only a small subset of the compen- sable afflictions that fall within the definition of legal pneumoconiosis under the Act. See Barber v. Director, OWCP, 43 F.3d 899, 901 (4th Cir. 1995). COPD, if it arises out of coal-mine employment, clearly is encom- passed within the legal definition of pneumoconiosis, even though it is a disease apart from clinical pneumoconiosis. See Warth v. Southern Ohio Coal Co., 60 F.3d 173, 175 (4th Cir. 1995).

Without a clear record, review is difficult.

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

Related

Swentek v. Usair, Inc.
830 F.2d 552 (Fourth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Richardson v. DOWCP, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-dowcp-ca4-1996.