A & E Coal Co. v. James Adams
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19027
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- James Adams worked as a coal miner for 17 years, including 12 years with A & E Coal Co.; he left in 1988 due to breathing problems and has not worked since.
- Adams smoked about a pack per day for ~25 years before quitting in 1998–1999.
- Adams’ 1988 claim for Black Lung Benefits was denied; he did not appeal.
- In 2007, Adams filed a second claim; two doctors (Dr. Rasmussen for DOL, Dr. Jarboe for A&E) diagnosed COPD and COPD-related impairment but disagreed on whether coal dust caused it or whether X-ray findings showed pneumoconiosis.
- The ALJ awarded benefits, finding pneumoconiosis caused by coal dust exposure and total disability; the Benefits Review Board affirmed.
- A & E Coal challenged the ALJ’s reliance on the regulatory preamble to evaluate credibility; the court reviews de novo and denies the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly consulted the preamble to the regulations. | A&E Coal argues the preamble bindingly controlled credibility. | Adams argues preamble is not binding and not required to be in record. | The ALJ may consult the preamble; it is not binding and the decision is upheld. |
| Whether the preamble was improperly used under the APA rulemaking requirements. | A&E Coal contends preamble required notice and comment. | Preable merely explains regulatory bases; not binding. | Preamble not binding; no notice-and-comment defect. |
| Whether the ALJ adequately articulated findings and basis for credibility determinations. | A&E Coal argues ALJ failed to tie findings to evidence. | ALJ thoroughly discussed evidence and explained credibility choices. | ALJ’s findings were sufficiently reasoned and supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harman Mining Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 678 F.3d 305 (4th Cir. 2012) (preamble explanation consistent with act; ALJ may rely on preamble)
- Home Concrete & Supply LLC v. United States, 634 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2011) (preamble cannot contradict plain statutory language; here is consistent with act)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Env. Prot. Agency, 290 F.3d 377 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (binding nature of regulatory pronouncements under APA)
- Appalachian Power Co. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 208 F.3d 1015 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (preamble-like documents; not binding ukase)
- Peabody Coal Co. v. Groves, 277 F.3d 829 (6th Cir. 2002) (appellate review of agency credibility determinations)