Buck Creek Coal Company v. Gay Sexton
706 F.3d 756
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Sexton, a coal miner with 25 years of work, sought Black Lung Benefits for decades, with a 2001 claim awarded after his death during proceedings; his widow filed a survivor claim that was consolidated with his claim.
- An administrative law judge (ALJ) later found a change in Sexton’s condition and total disability from pneumoconiosis, applying 20 C.F.R. § 725.309 to award benefits.
- Buck Creek Coal Company appealed, challenging the ALJ’s § 725.309(d) application and arguing that res judicata and finality principles bar a new claim.
- The Benefits Review Board affirmed the award for Sexton’s claim and partially affirmed and partially vacated the survivor claim, with Buck Creek challenging the Sexton claim result as to finality.
- The issue presented is whether § 725.309(d) was validly applied and whether a subsequent claim can award benefits without violating finality or res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper application of §725.309(d) change in condition | Sexton | Buck Creek | ALJ correctly applied §725.309(d) with a change in condition standard. |
| Whether the ALJ must compare old and new evidence (one-element test) | Sexton | Buck Creek | ALJ not required to compare old and new evidence under Cumberland Banks interpretation. |
| Whether awarding benefits on a subsequent claim violates res judicata | Sexton | Buck Creek | Subsequent claim does not violate res judicata. |
| Validity of §725.309 | Sexton | Buck Creek | §725.309 valid and properly applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirk, Tennessee Consol. Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP, 264 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2001) (test for change in condition under §725.309(d))
- Sharondale Corp. v. Ross, 42 F.3d 993 (6th Cir. 1994) (latency and progression of pneumoconiosis; new evidence allowed)
- U.S. Steel Mining Co. v. Director, OWCP, 386 F.3d 977 (11th Cir. 2004) (one-element approach rejected; focus on new evidence for change in condition)
- Labelle Processing Co. v. Swarrow, 72 F.3d 308 (3d Cir. 1995) (longstanding res judicata principles balanced with latent disease progression)
- Lisa Lee Mines v. Director, OWCP, 86 F.3d 1358 (4th Cir. 1996) (regulatory interpretation of §725.309 change in condition; new evidence allowed)
- Cumberland River Coal Co. v. Billie Banks and Director, OWCP, 690 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 2012) (adopts regulatory interpretation that focus is on new evidence to show change in condition)
- Midland Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP, 358 F.3d 486 (7th Cir. 2004) (practice in evaluating subsequent claims under §725.309; progressive disease)