Big Horn Coal Co. v. Sadler Ex Rel. Sadler, 924 F.3d 1317

Edgar Sadler, a former coal miner, received a medical diagnosis of total disability from pneumoconiosis in September 2005 but did not file the claim at issue until June 1, 2010.
Sadler had previously filed claims (1990, 1994) and sought modification of a 1994 denial; his modification proceeding was later withdrawn in 2008 after an ALJ (Judge Colwell) explained withdrawal would allow filing a new subsequent claim.
Sadler’s 2005 diagnosis letter was not presented at the 2008 hearing; Sadler testified he had received and read the letter in 2005.
The Department of Labor regulation 20 C.F.R. § 725.308(c) (now renumbered) states the BLBA three-year limitations period is mandatory and may be tolled only for “extraordinary circumstances.”
An ALJ tolled the statute of limitations, finding Sadler relied in good faith on Judge Colwell’s statements at the 2008 hearing; the Benefits Review Board affirmed.
Big Horn Coal Company appealed, arguing (1) § 725.308(c) is invalid and (2) no extraordinary circumstances justified tolling; the Tenth Circuit upheld the regulation but dismissed Big Horn’s tolling challenge for failure to exhaust before the Board and affirmed the Board’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Big Horn)	Defendant's Argument (Sadler/Board)	Held
Validity of 20 C.F.R. § 725.308(c) (tolling limitation)	Reg. exceeds Secretary’s authority; limitations may be non-tollable	Regulation reasonably interprets § 932(f) to allow tolling for extraordinary circumstances	Regulation is valid under Chevron deference
Whether § 932(f) is jurisdictional	Section is jurisdictional; no equitable tolling	Section is nonjurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling	§ 932(f) is nonjurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling presumption
Whether extraordinary circumstances justified tolling in this case	ALJ’s 2008 statements were correct based on record; no extraordinary circumstance; alleged concealment of 2005 report	Sadler relied in good faith on tribunal’s misstatement about refiling; that reliance was extraordinary	Court did not reach merits — claim not exhausted before Board; no jurisdiction to review
Exhaustion requirement for appellate review	N/A (argues merits)	Agency exhaustion required before Board; failure deprives court of jurisdiction	Big Horn failed to exhaust before Board; Tenth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to consider unraised arguments

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (framework for judicial review of agency statutory interpretations)
Keller Tank Servs. II, Inc. v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 854 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. 2017) (deference to reasonable agency construction)
Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (U.S. 2010) (equitable tolling applies to nonjurisdictional federal statutes of limitations)
Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1990) (presumption that equitable tolling applies in suits against the United States)
Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2014) (background of common-law equitable principles informs tolling)
United States v. Brockamp, 519 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1997) (circumstances where presumption of equitable tolling may be rebutted)
United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1998) (another example showing presumption can be overcome)
Barnes v. United States, 776 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2015) (analysis on when a statute of limitations is jurisdictional)
Bridger Coal Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 669 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2012) (BLBA is remedial in nature)
McConnell v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 993 F.2d 1454 (10th Cir. 1993) (issue-exhaustion in BLBA appeals is jurisdictional for Tenth Circuit)