Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 13-1114
Submitted:
Decided:
April 4, 2014
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Paramont Coal Company (Paramont) petitions for review of
the order of the Benefits Review Board (Board) affirming the
Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) award of benefits to Jeffrey
Coleman
(Coleman),
former
coal
mine
employee,
under
the
I.
Coleman
has
mining. 1
coal
spent
On
July
approximately
9,
2009,
33.34
Coleman
years
filed
employed
a
claim
in
for
with
pneumoconiosis,
commonly
disease. 2
known
as
black
lung
were
totally
disabled
at
the
time
of
their
deaths
(for
whose
deaths
were
Mine
Workers
caused
by
pneumoconiosis.
See
30
of
the
Office
of
Workers
on
August
3,
2010.
Upon
Paramonts
request
for
coal-mining
employment.
See
30
U.S.C.
901,
921;
20
passed since the denial of his first claim, Coleman also had to
establish that one of the applicable conditions of entitlement
. . . ha[d] changed since the date upon which the order denying
the prior claim became final.
provides
an
irrebuttable
20 C.F.R. 725.309(c).
statutory
presumption
of
The Act
total
30 U.S.C.
invocation
of
the
irrebuttable
statutory
presumption
of
U.S.C.
921(c)(3).
The
ALJ
therefore
determined
that
II.
In reviewing a claim for benefits under the Act, our review
of the Boards order is limited.
assess
whether
substantial
evidence
supports
the
factual
and
Id.
ALJ
are
rational
and
consistent
with
applicable
the
ALJs
Id.
findings,
we
4
must
sustain
the
ALJs
decision,
even
if
[we]
disagree
with
it.
Id.
We
review
Id.
III.
On
appeal,
although
Paramont
purports
to
raise
several
C.F.R.
718.304
and,
therefore,
erred
in
finding
that
totally
disabling
pneumoconiosis.
Paramont
specifically
broad
challenge
to
the
ALJs
weighing
of
the
conflicting evidence.
Section 411(c)(3) of the Act, as implemented by 20 C.F.R.
718.304,
provides
an
irrebuttable
presumption
of
total
The introduction of
not,
however,
automatically
irrebuttable presumption.
qualify
claimant
for
the
the
ALJ
must
examine
all
To make such a
the
evidence
on
the
See E.
Assoc. Coal Corp. v. Dir., OWCP, 220 F.3d 250, 25659 (4th Cir.
2000).
Our review of the record discloses that the ALJs decision
is
in
accordance
evidence.
with
the
law
and
supported
by
substantial
that the newly submitted x-ray of September 16, 2009 was read by
Dr. Michael S. Alexander (Dr. Alexander) and Dr. Kathleen A.
DePonte
(Dr.
radiologists
DePonte),
and
dually-qualified
readers,
as
positive
Board-certified
for
both
simple
The
ALJ noted that the x-ray was read as negative for pneumoconiosis
by
Dr.
Jerome
radiologist.
F.
Wiot
(Dr.
Wiot),
an
equally-qualified
x-ray
as
negative
for
both
simple
pneumoconiosis
and
concluded
attributed
complicated
that
Drs.
Alexander
pneumoconiosis
to
and
coal
DePonte
mine
employment
and
the
that
than
pneumoconiosis.
718.304(a).
(J.A.
273);
see
also
20
C.F.R.
After
crediting
the
more
recent
evidence,
the
ALJ
therefore,
to
invocation
of
totally
411(c)(3)
that
Coleman
irrebuttable
was
entitled
presumption
of
the
disabling
pneumoconiosis.
Paramont contends that the ALJ erred in finding that the xray evidence established complicated pneumoconiosis on the basis
7
of
the
Category
classifications
of
Dr.
Alexander
and
Dr.
Additionally, Paramont
pneumoconiosis,
but
was
due
to
another
disease
process.
Contrary to Paramonts arguments, however, the ALJ properly
found complicated pneumoconiosis pursuant to 718.304(a), based
on
the
x-ray
classified
readings
the
of
opacities
Drs.
seen
Alexander
as
and
Category
DePonte,
A.
The
who
ALJ
not
diagnose
large
opacity,
identify
the
size
of
the
Mountain Coal Co. v. Mays, 176 F.3d 753, 756 (4th Cir. 1999).
Moreover,
the
ALJ
properly
found
that
the
evidence
established that the large masses seen on the x-rays were due to
complicated
pneumoconiosis
and
not
another
disease
process.
(J.A.
and
DePonte,
attributing
Colemans
Category
The ALJ
complicated
pneumoconiosis
arising
out
of
coal
mine
to
invocation
of
the
411(c)(3)
irrebuttable
we
conclude
that
the
record
compels
repeatedly
opinions
of
Drs.
contends
Alexander
that
and
the
ALJs
DePonte,
reliance
over
those
us
to
Although
on
of
the
Drs.
conflicting
medical
opinions
as
to
whether
at
316.
This
is
precisely
what
Coleman
the
did,
as
she
Even if we might
IV.
Accordingly,
we
deny
Paramonts
petition
for
review
and
10
in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
11