Consolidation Coal Co v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
864 F.3d 1142
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- James Noyes worked ~22 years in underground coal mines; he was a long-time smoker and died in 2008 from respiratory conditions including emphysema/COPD, pneumonia, and lung cancer.
- Judy Noyes filed for survivor benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA) in 2008; claim initially denied, then remanded and ultimately awarded by an ALJ, with Consolidation Coal appealing.
- Congress in 2010 revived a 15‑year presumption (30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4)) that a miner’s death was due to pneumoconiosis for miners with ≥15 years underground work and a totally disabling respiratory impairment; DOL later promulgated 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(d) (2013) specifying rebuttal methods.
- The ALJ applied § 718.305(d)(2), found Consolidation failed to rebut the presumption, and awarded benefits; the BRB affirmed; Consolidation petitioned for review in the Tenth Circuit.
- The Tenth Circuit upheld (a) that the 15‑year presumption covers both clinical and legal pneumoconiosis, (b) that the DOL rebuttal regulation is lawful and may be applied retroactively, but (c) remanded because the ALJ misstated the proper rebuttal standard when assessing whether Consolidation had disproved legal pneumoconiosis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 15‑year presumption (§ 921(c)(4)) covers legal pneumoconiosis | Presumption should extend to legal pneumoconiosis (survivor relies on broad statutory/regulatory definitions) | Presumption applies only to clinical pneumoconiosis; including legal pneumoconiosis is improper | Court: Presumption covers both clinical and legal pneumoconiosis; defer to statute, precedent, and DOL interpretation |
| Whether DOL’s § 718.305(d) rebuttal rule unlawfully alters APA burden of persuasion | Not argued by claimant; supports DOL rule | Regulation shifts burden to employer, violating APA default (5 U.S.C. § 556(d)) | Court: § 921(c)(4) itself shifts burden to employer, so APA default does not prohibit DOL rule |
| Whether the regulation’s “rule‑out” standard (no part of death caused by pneumoconiosis) is impermissibly stringent | N/A (DOL/claimant support heightened standard to protect presumption) | Rule‑out is too demanding; employer should only need to show pneumoconiosis was not a substantial cause | Court: Rule‑out standard is permissible and consistent with BLBA purpose and precedent |
| Whether retroactive application or ALJ’s application of the rebuttal standard violated rights | Regulations may apply to pending claims and ALJ applied lawful standard | Retroactive application and ALJ misapplied/referenced wrong standard, prejudicing defendant | Court: Retroactive application permissible; but ALJ misstated the standard (treated (d)(2)(i) like rule‑out) — remand for reconsideration under proper standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Antelope Coal Co. v. Goodin, 743 F.3d 1331 (10th Cir.) (upholding rule‑out standard and retrospective application to pending claims)
- Andersen v. Dir., OWCP, 455 F.3d 1102 (10th Cir.) (interpreting scope of pneumoconiosis and limits of certain presumptions)
- Greenwich Collieries v. Director, OWCP, 512 U.S. 267 (Supreme Court) (APA burden rules and rejection of DOL’s true‑doubt rule)
- Rosebud Coal Sales Co. v. Weigand, 831 F.2d 926 (10th Cir.) (earlier application of rule‑out standard to rebuttal)
- Rose v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 614 F.2d 936 (4th Cir.) (discussing respondents’ failure to effectively rule out causal relationships)
- W. Va. CWP Fund v. Bender, 782 F.3d 129 (4th Cir.) (upholding § 718.305(d) rule‑out standard)
- Energy West Mining Co. v. Estate of Blackburn, 857 F.3d 817 (10th Cir.) (harmless‑error analysis where ALJ’s wording did not alter medical analysis)
- Bosco v. Twin Pines Coal Co., 892 F.2d 1473 (10th Cir.) (recognizing statutory shift of burden with the 15‑year presumption)