Case Information
*1 Bеfore: SUTTON and STRANCH, Circuit Judges; STEEH, District Judge. [*] _________________
COUNSEL ON BRIEF: Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Gary K. Stearman, Michelle S. Gerdano, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washingtоn, D.C., Joseph E. Wolfe, Ryan C. Gilligan, WOLFE, WILLIAMS, RUTHERFORD & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for Respondents.
_________________
OPINION
_________________
SUTTON, Circuit Judge. For two decades, Arlis Hensley tried to obtain benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act. 30 U.S.C. § 901 et seq . On his third try, he succeеded—or so it seemed. An Administrative Law Judge concluded that Hensley’s pulmonary troubles arose from the thirteen years he spent in the coal mines as opposed to a long-time smoking habit or other causes. As misfortune would have it, the ALJ erred in reaching this cоnclusion by failing to adhere to a key regulatory directive in weighing the medical evidence concerning Hensley’s disease. As а result, we must reverse and remand, albeit with the hope that the ALJ will quickly, fairly and finally resolve this long-running claim.
I.
Arlis Hensley worked in various capacities as a coal miner at various times for thirteen years between 1972 and 1988. App. at 22. He also smoked half a pack of cigarettes every day for at least ten years. Id. For twenty years, from 1990 to 2010, Hensley tried to convince the federal govеrnment that one feature of his past as opposed to the other caused a disabling pulmonary impairment. Id. at 21–22.
In February 2010, ALJ Kenneth Krantz concluded that Hensley suffered from a disabling form of pneumoconiosis caused by his jobs in the coal mines and awarded him benefits under the Act. Id. at 56. The Benefits Review Board affirmed, id. at 18, and Hensley’s former employer, Dixie Fuel Company, appealed.
II.
A claimant may establish work-related pneumoconiosis through x-rays,
autopsies, biopsies and medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a). In this instance, the
record contains five x-rаys, two biopsies, several CT scans and the medical opinions of
numerous physicians. Ordinarily, when an ALJ reviews such evidence, his decision to
grant or deny benefits will be upheld so long as “substantial evidence” supports it.
Eastover Mining Co. v. Williams
,
The ALJ committed just such an error. After summarizing the parties’ medical evidence—some supportive of Hensley’s claim, some not—the ALJ noted that a “Claimant may еstablish the existence of pneumoconiosis under any one of the alternate methods” in § 718.202. App. at 50 (emphasis added). He then determined that Hensley’s x-ray evidence was sufficient and by itself “established the existence of pneumoconiosis.” Id.
The ALJ erred by singling out the x-ray evidеnce to the exclusion of the other
evidence. Although an ALJ may give more weight to some evidence than other
evidence, he is not allowed to ignore competing evidence. “[N]one” of the categories
of evidence, we have held, “is conclusive if outweighed by contrary evidence.”
Gray
v. SLC Coal Co.
,
The Black Lung Benefits Act commands judges to consider “
all
relevant
evidence” in determining the validity of a given claim. 30 U.S.C. § 923(b) (emphasis
added). Construing an analogous regulation (§ 718.304),
Gray
explained that “‘all
relevant evidence’ means just that—all evidence that assists the ALJ in determining
whether a miner suffers from complicated pneumoconiosis.”
This reading respects the Directоr’s own interpretation of the regulation.
According to the Director, “although section 718.202(a) enumerates four distinct
methods of establishing pneumoconiosis, all types of relevant evidence
must be weighed
together
to determine whether the claimant suffers from the disease.” Br. fоr the Federal
Respondent at 22 (emphasis added). Because this is a reasonable interpretation of a
regulation thе Director is responsible for administering, it is controlling.
Auer v.
Robbins
,
Cases from other circuits come out the same way. The Third and Fourth Circuits
both agree that the “plain meaning of [the ‘all relevant evidence’] statutory language is
that all relevant evidence is to be cоnsidered together rather than merely within discrete
subsections of § 718.202(a).”
Island Creek Coal Co.,
211 F.3d at 208;
see also
Consolidation Coal Co. v. Held
,
Nor is a contrary conclusion easy to fathom. “[W]eighing all of the relevant
evidence together makes сommon sense.”
Island Creek Coal Co.
,
Nor was this error a harmless one. The other evidenсe cuts the other way, permitting a finding that Hensley does not suffer from pneumoconiosis. The biopsy of Hensley’s lungs came back nеgative, App. at 47, the CT scans may have been inconclusive, and several physicians testified against an award of benefits, Aрp. at 47–50. The ALJ must weigh all of the evidence—for and against a finding of pneumoconiosis—before granting benefits. This is not to say that the ALJ must reconsider his prior judgment with respect to any one piece of contrary evidence or end up with a different conсlusion. All of that is up to the ALJ in the first instance.
Because Hensley’s claim has been pending for so long, we hope (and expeсt) that the agency will resolve this claim once and for all expeditiously. If Hensley deserves benefits under the Act, he should not have to wait this long to obtain them.
III.
For these reasons, we vacate the decision of the Board and remand with instructions for the Board to remand this case to an ALJ for further consideration.
Notes
[*] The Honorable George Caram Steeh III, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation. 1