Roy E. Doss v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

854 F.2d 1316, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 10919, 1988 WL 83332
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 5, 1988
Docket87-3874
StatusUnpublished

This text of 854 F.2d 1316 (Roy E. Doss v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor) 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
Roy E. Doss v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 854 F.2d 1316, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 10919, 1988 WL 83332 (4th Cir. 1988).

Opinion

854 F.2d 1316
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Roy E. DOSS, Petitioner,
v.
Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United
States Department of Labor, Respondent.

No. 87-3874.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 3, 1988.
Decided Aug. 5, 1988.

J. Benjamin Dick (Law Offices of J. Benjamin Dick on brief) for petitioner.

Stephen K. Ackerman (George R. Salem, Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate Solicitor, Barbara J. Johnson, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Thomas L. Holzman, Assistant Counsel for Appellate Litigation, U.S. Department of Labor on brief) for respondent.

Before JAMES DICKSON PHILLIPS and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, NORMAN P. RAMSEY, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

Roy E. Doss petitions for review of a final order of the Department of Labor Benefits Review Board (Board) affirming the decision and order of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denying Doss benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 901 et seq. We find that the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and therefore affirm.

Petitioner Doss filed his black lung benefits claim on May 17, 1974. After benefits were initially denied, a formal hearing was held before an ALJ on November 30, 1984. The ALJ found that while Doss had failed to establish the existence of pneumoconiosis by x-ray pursuant to 20 C.F.R. Sec. 410.414(a)(1), Doss had established the existence of a totally disabling respiratory impairment under Sec. 410.414(c). Benefits were denied, however, on the basis of the ALJ's determination that Doss had not met his burden of showing that his pulmonary condition "arose out of employment in a coal mine."1

The Board affirmed the ALJ's finding that the x-ray evidence failed to establish the existence of pneumoconiosis. The Board declined to review the issue of whether Doss had sufficiently established the etiology of his pulmonary condition due to Doss' failure to allege specific error in the ALJ's decision in this regard.

In his petition for review before this court, Doss argues that the ALJ improperly weighed the x-ray evidence presented at the hearing and that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ's determination that Doss failed to establish that his pulmonary condition arose from his coal mine employment. Accordingly, we consider only these specific issues.

* In evidence at the hearing before the ALJ were nine x-ray films read a total of twelve times. The earliest x-ray was dated March 15, 1974, and was read by Drs. Scott and Rose, both uncertified readers whose radiologic qualifications were unknown to the ALJ.2 No mention of pneumoconiosis was made although Doss' lungs were noted to be over-expanded. An x-ray dated April 11, 1974, was read by Dr. Cooper, again an uncertified physician with unknown radiologic qualifications, without mention of pneumoconiosis. This x-ray was read by Dr. Shaffer, an A-reader, as negative for pneumoconiosis. X-rays taken June 18, 1974, June 19, 1974, and June 20, 1974, were read by Drs. Rowe, Brenbridge, and Merritt, respectively, as free of infiltrates but without mention of pneumoconiosis. The radiologic qualifications of all three physicians are unknown. Next, Dr. Shaffer read a film dated December 5, 1974, as 1/1 type t, small opacities-irregular, but concluded that the fibrotic changes were not the result of pneumoconiosis. This film was reread by Dr. Browning, a B-reader, who found it to be negative for pneumoconiosis but positive for emphysema. On April 21, 1976, another x-ray was taken and read by Dr. Surrat, radiologic qualifications unknown, as negative for pneumoconiosis but positive for emphysema. Four years later, on April 9, 1980, Dr. Brenbridge read a film taken that day as showing "a few interstitial lines" but "no definite acute pulmonary infiltrates." Finally, a film was taken on September 22, 1983, and initially read by Dr. Guerrant, a pulmonary special who is neither certified as a reader nor possessed of any radiologic qualifications, as negative for pneumoconiosis. This film was reread that same day by Dr. Bassali, a certified B-reader and board-certified radiologist, as positive for pneumoconiosis "type p/s with profusion of 3/2 affecting all six lung zones." Dr. Bassali also noted the presence of "mild to moderate pulmonary emphysema."

The ALJ noted that Sec. 410.414(a)(1) allows a miner to establish the existence of pneumoconiosis by x-ray. He then found that Doss had failed to do so because Dr. Bassali's positive reading lacked credibility in light of Dr. Guerrant's negative interpretation of the same x-ray and in light of the several prior negative readings. The Board, in affirming the ALJ, simply stated that this finding was "supported by the numerical weight of the x-ray evidence" which it considered to be conflicting with Dr. Bassali's reading.

Although the Supreme Court has recently held that in order to establish pneumoconiosis by x-ray a miner must do so by a preponderance of the x-ray evidence, see Mullins Coal Co. v. Director, O.W.C.P., 108 S.Ct. 427, 438-39 (1987), we have serious reservations as to the propriety of the ALJ's finding that Doss failed to do so in the present case. Significantly, in Mullins Coal, the Supreme Court noted that a single item of qualifying evidence may suffice to meet the claimant's burden when it is not "overcome by more reliable conflicting evidence." Id. at 439. While it is not necessary for us to reach this issue in light of our finding that substantial evidence supports the ALJ's finding that Doss has not shown that his impairment arose from coal mine employment, we observe here that the progressive nature of the black lung disease has led the Board and several courts to consistently conclude that " 'early negative X-ray readings are not inconsistent with significantly later positive readings.' " Id. at 436 (quoting Elkins v. Beth-Elkhorn Corp., 2 BLR 1-683, 1-686 (Ben.Rev.Bd.1979)). Moreover, as the Board in the present case implicitly recognized, the applicable regulations contemplate that consideration be given to physicians' relative radiologic qualifications and level of certification as readers when weighing their conflicting x-ray reports. See 20 C.F.R. Secs. 718.202, 727.206.

II

We have already noted that Doss, in order to establish his entitlement to benefits under the Act, must show that his impairment, whether pneumoconiosis or other pulmonary disease, arose from coal mine employment. While we recognize that an ALJ's analysis of causation might vary slightly depending on the initial finding as to the specific nature of the pulmonary impairment, we find that in the present case substantial evidence, in any event, supports the ALJ's finding that Doss failed to show that his impairment arose from coal mine employment.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
854 F.2d 1316, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 10919, 1988 WL 83332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roy-e-doss-v-director-office-of-workers-compensation-programs-united-ca4-1988.