Arkansas Coals, Inc. v. Albert Lawson
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 386
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Lawson, a coal miner, filed a 1990 Black Lung Benefits Act claim; Arkansas Coals was designated the responsible operator and later found not liable as the operator.
- An ALJ denied benefits in 1992, stating pneumoconiosis was not established and Arkansas Coals was not the responsible operator; Trust Fund would be liable if benefits were awarded.
- Lawson filed a second claim in 2009 alleging a change in medical condition; the director awarded benefits and designated Arkansas Coals as responsible operator.
- The Benefits Review Board affirmed the ALJ’s designation of Arkansas Coals as responsible operator; Arkansas Coals appealed.
- Issue centers on whether the designation can be relitigated in a subsequent claim, and whether finality, collateral estoppel, or waiver bars reconsideration.
- The panel affirmed BRB, holding that Arkansas Coals was properly designated as the responsible operator and that substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether finality/Longshore Act bars reconsideration of the responsible operator designation | Arkansas Coals relies on §922 and related rules to bar modification | Director did not properly finalize; subsequent claim allowed | No; reconsideration permitted under §725.309(d)(4) |
| Whether collateral estoppel bars reconsideration of the designation | Lawson’s prior denial precludes relitigating the operator | Finding not necessary to denial; estoppel applies to different contexts | No; collateral estoppel does not bar relitigating the designation |
| Whether the Department waived the right to relitigate Arkansas Coals’s liability | Director failed to contest or present evidence in the first proceeding | Director contested the issue; no waiver | No; Department did not waive the right to relitigate |
| Whether substantial evidence supports Arkansas Coals as the responsible operator | Evidence shows Martin Mining had no insurance; Arkansas Coals employed Lawson first | Gearheart testimony insufficient to show alternative coverage or successor liability | Yes; substantial evidence supports Arkansas Coals as the responsible operator |
| Whether the identified issues were properly litigated and binding in a later claim | Relitigation necessary due to changed medical condition | Findings not binding due to change in condition | Yes; relitigation allowed under §725.309(d)(4) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cumberland River Coal Co. v. Banks, 690 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 2012) (deference to agency interpretation; separate claim mechanism for new conditions)
- Morrison v. Tenn. Consol. Coal Co., 644 F.3d 473 (6th Cir. 2011) (appeals de novo; defer to agency interpretations of regulations)
- USX Corp. v. Director, OWCP, 978 F.2d 656 (11th Cir. 1992) (modification of awards; timing and liability implications)
- Jonida Trucking, Inc. v. Hunt, 124 F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 1997) (waiver and response to responsible operator designation; distinguishable facts)
- Conley v. Nat’l Mines Corp., 595 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2010) (legal standard; agency interpretations and deference)