112 F.4th 343
6th Cir.2024Background
- David Howard, a coal miner, filed for Black Lung Benefits after working for Apogee Coal Company from 1978-1997; at the time, Apogee was owned and self-insured by Arch Resources.
- Arch sold Apogee and its liabilities in 2005; later, Patriot Coal, as a successor, assumed black lung liabilities but dissolved in bankruptcy in 2015.
- The Department of Labor issued Bulletin 16-01 directing that claims pending, like Howard’s, should be assigned to Arch, Apogee’s self-insurer at the time of Howard's last employment.
- Arch was designated as the liable insurer but failed to submit evidence contesting this designation within the regulatory deadlines.
- Arch challenged its liability, the regulatory process, and sought to supplement the appellate record with new materials; both requests were denied by agency adjudicators and the Benefits Review Board, with Arch petitioning for circuit review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Arch) | Defendant's Argument (DOL/Howard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplementing the Record | Court should admit new evidence for review or due to claim complexity | All evidence was available to Arch before; proper procedures and time limits were followed | Denied: evidence not timely; no extraordinary circumstances; deadlines enforce efficient process |
| Regulatory Evidence Rules | Liability rules unlawfully restrict evidence submission to district director, not ALJ | Rules permit exclusion of late evidence to promote orderly process; ALJs retain discretion | BLBA regulations valid under APA; rules are consistent with statutes, not arbitrary or capricious |
| DOL's Bulletin 16-01 | Bulletin is a new substantive rule requiring notice & comment; alters prior practice | Bulletin is just guidance; does not create new law or obligations; consistent with regulations | Bulletin is interpretive, not requiring notice-and-comment; does not create new substantive right/oblig. |
| Due Process Notice | Did not receive adequate notice as liable insurer | Arch was given timely notice via Notice of Claim and SSAE; had opportunity to defend | Due process satisfied: Arch received notice/opportunity as required before final determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Dir., OWCP v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267 (U.S. 1994) (BLBA incorporates APA only as modified by the Secretary’s regulations)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (defines arbitrary and capricious standard for agency review)
- Arch Coal, Inc. v. Acosta, 888 F.3d 493 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (Bulletin 16-01 does not require notice-and-comment rulemaking under APA)
- Oakbrook Land Holdings, LLC v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 28 F.4th 700 (6th Cir. 2022) (notice-and-comment rulemaking for substantive agency rules)
- Karst Robbins Coal Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 969 F.3d 316 (6th Cir. 2020) (Sixth Circuit reviews legal conclusions from Benefits Review Board de novo)