Appleton & Ratliff Coal Corp. v. Dewey Ratliff
664 F. App'x 470
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Dewey Ratliff, a long‑time coal miner, filed a BLBA claim in 2001; his last employer for over one year was Appleton & Ratliff Coal Corp. (A&R), which ceased operations in 1998.
- A&R’s insurer, Reliance, was liquidated shortly after the claim; the Kentucky Insurance Guaranty Association (KIGA) later appeared for A&R under Kentucky law.
- OWCP identified A&R as a “potentially liable operator” and, after A&R failed to respond to the initial notice, designated A&R the responsible operator in its evidence‑submission schedule and later in a proposed decision.
- A&R (via KIGA) contested the responsible‑operator designation years later, arguing KIGAA exempted it from paying federal black lung benefits and that it was not financially capable of assuming liability; A&R also raised evidentiary and due‑process challenges regarding modification limits and certain x‑ray readings.
- The ALJ awarded benefits to Ratliff, credited a March 16, 2010 x‑ray reading diagnosing complicated pneumoconiosis, found A&R financially capable of liability, and discredited contrary readings; the Benefits Review Board affirmed, and the Sixth Circuit denied A&R’s petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether KIGA (via A&R) is exempt under KIGAA from paying black lung benefits | Ratliff: KIGAA covers covered claims; KIGA stepped in so A&R is capable of liability | A&R: KIGAA excludes government‑guaranteed benefits like BLBA, so KIGA/ A&R not liable | Court rejected A&R’s novel statutory‑construction argument and affirmed A&R/KIGA’s liability (A&R precluded from contesting capability) |
| Whether A&R was precluded from contesting its financial capability to pay | Ratliff: OWCP regs bar late challenges; A&R failed to timely respond | A&R: late challenge justified because insurer insolvent and KIGA issues | Held: Under 20 C.F.R. §725.408, A&R’s failure to timely contest precluded later challenges; KIGA’s later agreement estopped revisiting designation |
| Whether 20 C.F.R. §725.310(b) (limits on evidence in modification) violated due process | A&R: limits unconstitutionally restrict meaningful opportunity to present case in modification | Ratliff: procedural challenge was not preserved and A&R did not show what evidence was excluded | Held: Argument forfeited—A&R failed to show what evidence was barred or invoke good‑cause exception; no reviewable due‑process violation shown |
| Whether ALJ erred in weighing x‑ray readings (March 16, 2010) and excluding Broudy/Wheeler readings | A&R: ALJ improperly excluded Broudy’s reading and improperly discounted Wheeler’s opinion (alternative diagnoses) | Ratliff: Broudy’s reading was not properly submitted; Wheeler’s opinion was inconsistent and lacked foundation | Held: No abuse of discretion; Broudy’s reading was not offered as admissible evidence and ALJ properly discounted Wheeler as inconsistent and unsupported; substantial evidence supports ALJ’s findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ark. Coals, Inc. v. Lawson, 739 F.3d 309 (6th Cir. 2014) (discussing obligation of operators to be liable to the maximum extent feasible)
- Kentland Elkhorn Coal Corp. v. Hall, 287 F.3d 555 (6th Cir. 2002) (if director’s responsible‑operator designation is later found unsupported, Trust Fund pays benefits)
- Morrison v. Tenn. Consol. Coal Co., 644 F.3d 473 (6th Cir. 2011) (substantial evidence standard and review of ALJ credibility findings)
- Jonida Trucking, Inc. v. Hunt, 124 F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 1997) (ALJ’s authority in modification to reconsider prior findings)
- Greene v. King James Coal Min., Inc., 575 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2009) (credibility and sufficiency of medical opinions are for the factfinder)
- Peabody Coal Co. v. Hill, 123 F.3d 412 (6th Cir. 1997) (upholding ALJ’s credibility explanations as substantial evidence)
- Big Branch Res., Inc. v. Ogle, 737 F.3d 1063 (6th Cir. 2013) (court will not reweigh conflicting medical evidence)
- NLRB v. Jackson Hosp. Corp., 557 F.3d 301 (6th Cir. 2009) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cox, 602 F.3d 276 (4th Cir. 2010) (rejecting speculative alternative diagnoses unsupported by record)