842 F.3d 279
4th Cir.2016Background
- Miner Turl Mullins worked for RB&F (1985–86) then Wilder (1986–88); diagnosed with pneumoconiosis and filed a BLBA claim in 2009.
- BLBA liability normally falls to the most recent employer who is a “potentially liable operator” and financially capable of paying benefits under 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.494–.495.
- Wilder was defunct; its insurer Rockwood became insolvent and a liquidator set an August 26, 1992 bar date for claims against Rockwood.
- Virginia’s Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (VPCIGA) covers only “covered claims” filed before that bar date under the Virginia Guaranty Act. Mullins’s 2009 claim is after the bar date.
- DOL district director named RB&F the responsible operator; ALJ and Benefits Review Board affirmed that Wilder/Rockwood/VPCIGA could not be treated as financially capable and thus RB&F is liable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (RB&F) | Defendant's Argument (DOL/Respondents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilder (the more recent employer) is a "potentially liable operator" | Wilder’s BLBA liability was covered by Rockwood and thus by VPCIGA, so Wilder is financially capable | Wilder and Rockwood are insolvent; VPCIGA does not cover claims filed after the 1992 bar date, so Wilder is not financially capable | Wilder is not a potentially liable operator because Rockwood is insolvent and the VPCIGA is not obligated to cover Mullins’s post-1992 claim; RB&F is liable |
| Whether VPCIGA is an "insurer" under the BLBA such that state limitations are preempted | VPCIGA functions as an insurer stepping into Rockwood’s shoes and BLBA preempts state limits, so VPCIGA must cover claim | VPCIGA is a state guaranty association, not a traditional insurer; Virginia law limits its obligation to "covered claims" and it does not insure post-bar-date claims | VPCIGA is not an insurer for this claim; Virginia law bars VPCIGA liability here, so federal preemption need not be reached |
| Whether Virginia’s bar date is void as an impossibility that should be disregarded under Boyd & Stevenson | The 1992 bar date is impossible for later- diagnosed miners and should be voided under equitable principles cited in Boyd & Stevenson | Boyd & Stevenson is distinguishable and Virginia precedent (Mounts) supports enforcing the bar date; the bar date controls | The court rejects RB&F’s reliance on Boyd & Stevenson; Mounts controls and the bar date stands |
| Whether burden-shifting/regulatory notice issues (APA/Greenwich) affected the outcome | ALJ’s burden-shifting and notice approach was erroneous, requiring reversal | Even if burden-shifting was erroneous, outcome rests on uncontested legal facts so any error was harmless | Burden-shifting question is irrelevant to result; decision affirmed on legal grounds (state law limits VPCIGA coverage) |
Key Cases Cited
- Boyd & Stevenson Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, 407 F.3d 663 (4th Cir.) (distinguishing survivor-claim filing interpretation issues; not controlling here)
- Uninsured Employer's Fund v. Mounts, 484 S.E.2d 140 (Va. Ct. App.) (holding VPCIGA barred from paying claims filed after Rockwood’s 1992 cutoff)
- Tazco, Inc. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep't of Labor, 895 F.2d 949 (4th Cir.) (BLBA requires insurers to "step into the shoes" of covered employers for insured claims)
- Armco, Inc. v. Martin, 277 F.3d 468 (4th Cir.) (applying DOL regulations to assign liability to the next liable employer when the most recent is incapable)
- Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cox, 602 F.3d 276 (4th Cir.) (standard of review for BRB/ALJ legal conclusions)