Frontier-Kemper Constructors, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
876 F.3d 683
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Miner Grat M. Smith worked for a Partnership (Frontier Constructors & Kemper Construction) from Dec 1973–Aug 1974 and later for Frontier-Kemper (the reorganized corporation) in Aug–Nov 2005.
- In 1982 the Partnership reorganized into Frontier-Kemper; Department of Labor treated Frontier-Kemper as the Partnership’s successor operator.
- The Department combined Smith’s employment periods (1973–74 and 2005) and concluded the cumulative employment exceeded one year, making Frontier-Kemper a potentially liable operator under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA).
- Frontier-Kemper challenged liability, arguing (1) the Partnership was not an “operator” under the pre-1977 definition and applying the post-1977 expanded definition would be impermissibly retroactive, and (2) the ALJ miscalculated Smith’s employment duration.
- The ALJ and Benefits Review Board credited Smith’s testimony and wage records, found Frontier-Kemper a successor operator, concluded cumulative employment exceeded one year, and awarded benefits; Frontier-Kemper appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Frontier-Kemper is liable as a successor operator | Smith/Director: successor liability attaches because Frontier-Kemper acquired the Partnership and employed Smith in 2005; prior employment can be deemed employment of the successor | Frontier-Kemper: Partnership wasn’t an "operator" in 1973–74 under the pre-1977 definition, so successor liability would be retroactive if post-1977 definition applied to pre-1977 conduct | Held: No impermissible retroactivity; apply post-1977 definition as of claim filing; Frontier-Kemper is a successor operator |
| Whether applying the expanded 1977 definition of "operator" is retroactive | Smith/Director: the relevant conduct producing liability occurred after 1977 and long after the amendments; the claim was filed post‑1977 | Frontier-Kemper: applying the expanded definition to pre‑1977 employment attaches new legal consequences to past acts | Held: Not retroactive — liability arises from Frontier-Kemper’s 2005 conduct (acquisition and hiring) and the claim filed later, so fair notice and reliance concerns are not violated |
| Whether the ALJ’s finding of cumulative employment ≥ 1 year is supported | Smith/Director: ALJ properly credited testimony and wage records to reach >1 year | Frontier-Kemper: ALJ made clerical/calculation mistakes; employment not proven for required duration | Held: Substantial evidence supports ALJ credibility determinations and the cumulative one-year finding |
| Whether Hughes precedent requires a different result | Frontier-Kemper: Hughes forbids applying expanded definition to pre‑amendment claims | Smith/Director: Hughes is distinguishable because Hughes involved claims filed before the amendment; here claim and later employment occurred after amendment | Held: Hughes distinguishable; prior precedent does not bar application here |
Key Cases Cited
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (establishes retroactivity framework and presumption against retroactive application)
- Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (statute not retroactive where regulated conduct continued after enactment)
- Hughes v. Heyl & Patterson, Inc., 647 F.2d 452 (4th Cir. 1981) (distinguishable precedent on retroactivity of BLBA operator definition)
- Matherly v. Andrews, 817 F.3d 115 (4th Cir. 2016) (articulates the three-part retroactivity inquiry and commonsense functional judgment)