Island Creek Coal Co. v. Melyndia Bryan
937 F.3d 738
6th Cir.2019Background
- The Black Lung Benefits Act creates an administrative path: district director → ALJ hearing → Benefits Review Board (BRB) → federal court review of a final BRB order.
- After Lucia v. SEC (138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018)), petitioners raised Appointments Clause challenges to the ALJs who decided their black‑lung claims; the Department concedes the ALJs were unconstitutionally appointed.
- Dorris Cunningham and Island Creek (in Bryan’s case) first presented Appointments Clause objections in BRB motions for reconsideration after the BRB issued final decisions; the BRB deemed the claims waived and denied reconsideration.
- Petitioners sought court review asking for new hearings before properly appointed ALJs and also contested factual rulings; the Department argued the constitutional claims were forfeited for failure to exhaust before the BRB.
- The Sixth Circuit framed three questions: (1) whether the Black Lung regime requires issue exhaustion with the BRB; (2) whether motions for reconsideration suffice; (3) whether exceptions to exhaustion apply — and answered: yes, no, and no.
- The court also affirmed on the merits: (a) substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits to Cunningham; (b) substantial evidence supported the finding that Island Creek failed to rebut the statutory presumption of legal pneumoconiosis in Bryan’s case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parties must exhaust issues before the Benefits Review Board before raising them in court | Cunningham/Island Creek: the Appointments Clause claim may be raised in court (or preserved via reconsideration) despite not being raised earlier | Department: BRB rules and regulation require issue exhaustion; failure to follow them forfeits issues in court | Held: Yes — BRB’s regulation requiring petitions to identify specific issues (20 C.F.R. §802.211(a)) creates an exhaustion requirement enforceable by courts |
| Whether raising the Appointments Clause issue in a motion for reconsideration suffices to exhaust the issue | Petitioners: motion for reconsideration (filed after BRB decision) preserved the issue | Department: BRB’s practice bars new arguments first presented on reconsideration; motions do not preserve new issues | Held: No — BRB prohibits raising new issues on reconsideration; petitioners failed to follow agency procedure and did not exhaust |
| Whether exceptions (futility, extraordinary circumstances, facial‑challenge) excuse failure to exhaust | Petitioners: Lucia and other circumstances make raising the claim earlier impracticable or justify an exception | Department: No exception fits; BRB can and has addressed Appointments Clause claims if timely raised | Held: No — neither facial‑challenge nor extraordinary‑circumstances exceptions apply here; petitioners did not show entitlement to any exception |
| Substantial‑evidence review of merits (Cunningham total‑disability; Bryan rebuttal of presumption) | Cunningham: pulmonary tests and physicians proved total disability; Island Creek (Bryan): medical opinions rebutted legal pneumoconiosis presumption | BRB/ALJ: credibility determinations and regulatory table application supported the ALJ’s findings | Held: Substantial evidence supports the ALJ/BRB on both points; petitions for review denied on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 138 S. Ct. 2044 (U.S. 2018) (Appointments Clause decision triggering challenges to ALJ appointments)
- Sims v. Apfel, 530 U.S. 103 (U.S. 2000) (discusses categories and limits of issue‑exhaustion in administrative schemes)
- Jones Bros., Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, 898 F.3d 669 (6th Cir. 2018) (analyzed post‑Lucia exhaustion and exceptions under Mine Act)
- Ross v. Blake, 136 S. Ct. 1850 (U.S. 2016) (explains statutory vs. prudential exhaustion and limits on judge‑made exceptions)
- McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1992) (prudential exhaustion as judicially crafted doctrine)
- Cox v. Benefits Review Bd., 791 F.2d 445 (6th Cir. 1986) (statutory limits on BRB review and need to identify specific issues on appeal)
- Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (U.S. 1991) (Appointments Clause context and discussion of exhaustion in tax adjudication)