Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
706 F. App'x 111
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Westmoreland Coal Company sought review of the Benefits Review Board’s affirmation of an ALJ award of black lung benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act.
- Employer challenged the ALJ’s discounting of pulmonologist Dr. David Rosenberg’s opinion that FEV1/FVC ratio patterns can distinguish smoke-induced COPD from dust-induced COPD.
- The Fourth Circuit had stayed the petition pending its decision in Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Stallard; Stallard issued and is applied here.
- The court reviewed whether substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s factual findings and whether the Board’s legal conclusions were consistent with law.
- The court concluded the ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Rosenberg’s theory because it conflicted with the agency’s Preamble and relied on studies that did not address coal-dust-related disease.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ erred in discounting Dr. Rosenberg’s FEV1/FVC etiology theory | ALJ should have credited Dr. Rosenberg: FEV1/FVC patterns indicate smoke vs dust etiology | ALJ properly discounted the theory as inconsistent with agency Preamble and supporting studies | ALJ did not err; substantial evidence supports discounting the theory |
| Whether recent studies relied on by Dr. Rosenberg undermine ALJ’s findings | Recent studies support Rosenberg and show FEV1/FVC not decreased by coal dust | Recent studies do not address black lung and thus are weak support | Studies cited do not meaningfully undermine ALJ; opinion stands |
| Whether Board/ALJ applied correct legal standard for awarding benefits | Award should require clear etiological separation by ratio patterns | Board/ALJ applied statutory/regulatory framework and Preamble guidance | Legal conclusions are rational and consistent with applicable law |
| Whether record otherwise supports award of benefits | (Implicit) Evidence supports entitlement under Act | Employer contested but offered no reversible error | Petition denied; award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hobet Mining, LLC v. Epling, 783 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 2015) (describing standard of appellate review for black lung benefits decisions)
- Sea "B" Mining Co. v. Addison, 831 F.3d 244 (4th Cir. 2016) (explaining deference to ALJ factual findings supported by substantial evidence)