CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Debra Ann FULLER, widow of Elmer L. Fuller, deceased; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
No. 98-1949.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued March 5, 1999. Decided June 25, 1999.
III.
The Supreme Court explained twenty-five years ago that Congress enacted the Equal Pay Act to remedy a “serious and endemic problem“----the fact that the wage structure of “many segments of American industry has been based on an ancient but outmoded belief that a man, because of his role in society, should be paid more than a woman even though his duties are the same.” Corning Glass, 417 U.S. at 195, 94 S.Ct. 2223 (internal quotation marks omitted). Today, in depriving Brinkley of a trial on her Equal Pay Act claim, the majority frustrates Congress‘s clear purpose in enacting this legislation. I regret the majority‘s ill-advised action and dissent from it.
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and LEE, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, sitting by designation.
OPINION
KING, Circuit Judge:
Clinchfield Coal Company petitions for review of the Decision and Order of the Benefits Review Board (BRB) upholding an award of black lung survivors’ benefits to the respondent, Debra Ann Fuller, the widow of deceased coal miner Elmer Fuller.1 An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that Mr. Fuller had been afflicted with pneumoconiosis arising out of his coal mine employment, and that the disease had hastened his death.
We conclude that the ALJ improperly evaluated the competing evidence regarding the extent to which Mr. Fuller‘s pneumoconiosis affected the pulmonary condition that contributed to his death. The BRB placed its imprimatur upon the ALJ‘s reasoning, but we cannot. We therefore grant the petition for review, vacate the award of benefits, and remand for further proceedings.
I.
A.
Black lung benefits may be paid to eligible survivors of a miner whose death was “due to pneumoconiosis,”
Ms. Fuller filed her claim for survivors’ benefits about a month after her husband‘s death in 1994 from “a final episode of respiratory and cardiac failure.” Mr. Fuller had worked in the coal mines for over twenty years. X-rays taken during his lifetime never read positive for pneumoconiosis, but an autopsy revealed the presence of moderate anthracosis and numerous carbonaceous macules in both lungs.
The District Director denied the claim on initial review, and again upon Ms. Fuller‘s request for modification. The matter was subsequently referred to the Office of Administrative Law Judges for hearing, in anticipation of which an informal conference was scheduled to define the scope of the dispute. Ms. Fuller attended the conference with her attorney. Clinchfield, which had earlier controverted its liability for the claim, was also represented by counsel.2
B.
Ms. Fuller presented the statement of her husband‘s treating cardiologist, Dr. Harrison Turner, who opined that Mr. Fuller‘s “autopsy-proven” pneumoconiosis “increased the breathing workload of a heart already compromised by significant left ventricular dysfunction, further reducing air exchange and increasing the cardiac workload.” At his deposition, Dr. Turner retreated from this position somewhat. Although he reiterated that death had come sooner to Mr. Fuller as the result of the latter‘s breathing impairment, Dr. Turner hesitated to attribute the poor condition of his patient‘s lungs to coal dust exposure, expressing his belief that such a diagnosis was better left to pulmonologists.
Dr. J. Randolph Forehand, who, some years earlier, had twice examined Mr. Fuller in connection with the miner‘s claim for black lung benefits, was considerably less equivocal. Upon reviewing his records and the autopsy report, Dr. Forehand concluded that
[Mr. Fuller‘s] respiratory difficulties in life were due in part to coal workers’ pneumoconiosis.... Because of the small residual ventilatory capacity remaining, he was unable to compensate for the effects of cardiac failure[,] thus his death was due to a combination of cardiac and respiratory factors including coal workers’ pneumoconiosis.
Dr. Forehand acknowledged that cigarette smoking had adversely affected Mr. Fuller‘s respiratory capacity. He nonetheless held firm in his belief that pneumoconiosis was also to blame, stating that “[b]oth his coal workers’ pneumoconiosis and pulmonary emphysema from cigarette smoking were ... the cause of lack of respiratory compensation during terminal events in the hospital preceding death.”
Clinchfield‘s experts took a different view. The company had four pathologists and three pulmonary specialists review the pertinent records; all concluded that Mr. Fuller had suffered from, at most, “mild” or “minimal” simple pneumoconiosis. None believed the disease to have contributed to his death. To the extent that these experts recognized Mr. Fuller to have a pulmonary disorder, it was attributed solely to cigarette smoking.
II.
A.
The ALJ credited Ms. Fuller‘s evidence, giving determinative weight to Dr. Turner‘s opinion. The opinions of Clinchfield‘s experts were deemed to be less probative, largely because the ALJ thought them contradictory to the company‘s stipulation that Mr. Fuller had pneumoconiosis “as defined by the Act and regulations.” That definition states:
For the purpose of the Act, pneumoconiosis means a chronic dust disease of the lung and its sequelae, including respiratory and pulmonary impairments, arising out of coal mine employment.... For purposes of this definition, a disease “arising out of coal mine employment” includes any chronic pulmonary disease resulting in respiratory or pulmonary impairment significantly related to, or substantially aggravated by, dust exposure in coal mine employment.
Because Clinchfield stipulated that Mr. Fuller had pneumoconiosis, the ALJ reasoned, it must also have stipulated that his pneumoconiosis was impairing. Insofar, then, as Clinchfield‘s experts had opined that Mr. Fuller‘s pneumoconiosis had not impaired his pulmonary function, those opinions were considered by the ALJ to be unworthy of credence. Cf. Warth v. Southern Ohio Coal Co., 60 F.3d 173, 175 n.* (4th Cir.1995) (expert opinions in direct conflict with the regulations promulgated under the Black Lung Benefits Act entitled to little, if any, weight).3
The culprit in this case is a familiar one. The origin of this dispute can be traced to the failure of the parties and the ALJ to sufficiently distinguish between pneumoconiosis in its “clinical” and “legal” sense.
The definition, however, also includes diseases that are or can be caused by coal dust inhalation. Any “chronic dust disease of the lung and its sequelae ... arising out of coal mine employment” will qualify. Many of these diseases are specifically listed in the regulation. One is “coal workers’ pneumoconiosis“----often referred to as “clinical” or “medical” pneumoconiosis. Another is anthracosis. The autopsy revealed the presence of both of these diseases in Mr. Fuller‘s lungs, and this is what Clinchfield fairly stipulated to when it agreed that Mr. Fuller had pneumoconiosis “as defined by the Act and regulations.”
It follows, then, that what Clinchfield stipulated to is not necessarily inconsistent with what its experts perceived. Although other reasons were recited for discounting the opinions of those experts, the imagined inconsistency played such a prominent role in the ALJ‘s analysis as to undermine our confidence in the correctness of his decision. We are, of course, bound to affirm the ALJ‘s ruling if it is in accordance with law, and is supported by substantial evidence. Piney Mountain Coal Co. v. Mays, 176 F.3d 753 (4th Cir.1999) (citations omitted). Here, though, the ALJ interpreted and applied the law incorrectly, casting doubt on whether substantial evidence supports the benefit award. We are therefore constrained to remand this matter to be considered anew.
III.
The petition for review is accordingly granted. The award of benefits to Ms. Fuller is vacated, and this claim is remanded to the Benefits Review Board for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; AWARD VACATED AND CLAIM REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
Joyce DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY; Medical College of Virginia; Michael Oliver, individually and in his official capacity as Nurse Manager, Virginia Commonwealth University, Defendants-Appellees, and Amy Nechamkin, individually and in her official capacity as Office Manager, Psychiatry Department, Virginia Commonwealth University, Defendant.
No. 97-1452.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 7, 1998.
Decided June 29, 1999.