Blue Mountain Energy v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19802
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Terry Gunderson, a long‑time coal miner, filed a Black Lung Benefits Act claim for COPD; Blue Mountain (his former employer) opposed, attributing his COPD to long‑term smoking.
- ALJ initially denied benefits after finding expert opinions evenly balanced; the Board and Tenth Circuit remanded for a more detailed, scientifically grounded explanation.
- On subsequent remands, the ALJ revisited the medical opinions, cited the DOL preamble to the 2001 regulatory amendments (summarizing medical literature on legal pneumoconiosis), and ultimately awarded benefits; the ALJ declined to reopen the record to admit evidence challenging the preamble.
- The Board affirmed the ALJ, holding the ALJ permissibly relied on the preamble as a statement of medical principles and did not need to treat the preamble as extra‑record evidence requiring notice and an opportunity to respond.
- Blue Mountain petitioned for review, arguing (1) the ALJ illegitimately gave the preamble the force of law without APA notice‑and‑comment and (2) the ALJ abused discretion by refusing to reopen the record to allow rebuttal evidence addressing the preamble.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Blue Mountain) | Defendant's Argument (Gunderson / Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ unlawfully gave the DOL preamble the force of law (violating APA notice‑and‑comment) | ALJ treated preamble as binding rule or determinative consistency test, which is unlawful because preamble was not subject to notice and comment | ALJ used preamble only as a scientific primer to test expert opinions; did not promulgate new binding rules | Court: ALJ may consult the preamble to evaluate experts; use as one evidentiary tool is permissible and not equivalent to issuing binding law |
| Whether the ALJ abused discretion by refusing to reopen the record so Blue Mountain could submit evidence rebutting the preamble’s science | APA required reopening because preamble functioned as extra‑record evidence relied on to decide case | Preamble is a public law document; Blue Mountain had prior notice and opportunity to submit counter‑evidence and failed to identify new, specific preamble points needing rebuttal | Court: No abuse of discretion — ALJ properly declined to reopen; Blue Mountain had opportunity before close of record and on reconsideration to challenge the preamble |
| Whether reliance on the preamble impermissibly shifted claimant’s burden of proof | Preamble use effectively relieved Gunderson of proving causation | ALJ still required claimant to prove causation; preamble only helped assess expert credibility and could be countered by case‑specific evidence | Court: Use of preamble did not shift burden; it is a permissible aid in weighing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Peabody Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 746 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.) (ALJ may consult regulatory preamble to evaluate conflicting medical opinions)
- Arch on the Green, Inc. v. Groves, 761 F.3d 594 (6th Cir.) (preamble may be used to test doctors’ theories if not treated as binding)
- Harman Mining Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 678 F.3d 305 (4th Cir.) (ALJ entitled to cite preamble to discredit opinions inconsistent with agency’s scientific premises)
- Helen Mining Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 650 F.3d 248 (3d Cir.) (reference to preamble can support discounting a physician’s opinion)
- Consolidation Coal Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 521 F.3d 723 (7th Cir.) (ALJ permissibly discredited physician whose view conflicted with preamble’s findings)
- Gunderson v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 601 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir.) (prior Tenth Circuit remand instructing ALJ to provide detailed, scientifically grounded explanation)
- Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers, 131 F.3d 438 (4th Cir.) (factors for evaluating medical opinions)
- Antelope Coal Co. v. Goodin, 743 F.3d 1331 (10th Cir.) (standard of review for legal questions vs. discretionary evidentiary rulings)
- Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (2000) (opinion letters not entitled to Chevron deference; distinguished by court)
- Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency deference framework)