Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc.

BETHENERGY PAULEY v. OF SURVIVOR PAULEY, INC., MINES, et al. 24, 1991* June February 1991 Decided Argued 89-1714.

No. Director, v. 90-113, Coal Co. with No. * Together Office of Clinchfield Labor, et Department Programs, States United Compensation Workers’ Director, Workers’ v. al., 90-114, Co. Coal No. Consolidation Officeof al., Labor, on Department et Programs, United States Compensation Circuit. Appeals for Fourth Court States to the United certiorari respondents for cause argued E. Solomons Mark and 90-114. 90-113 Nos. petitioners and 89-1714 No. 90-113 in Nos. petitioners for briefs on him With Prunty, R. Klaus, Allen Laura were 90-114 Metcoff Solomons, Ms. Bagnato and Messrs. Bagnato. J. John for Prunty a brief filed Mr. Barnette, H. Klaus, Curtis Inc. BethEnergy Mines, respondent re- federal argued cause Wright Christopher J. Solicitor were briefs on himWith all cases. spondent Deputy Shapiro, Starr, General Solicitor General Allen H. Sieger. Feldman, and Edward D. Henriques, argued N. petitioner Jr.,

Julian cause for private respondents in No. 89-1714 and in Nos. 90-113 and petitioner 90-114. With him on the briefs for in 89-1714 Timothy Creany, were Robert E. Lehrer, P. and Blair V. Sherry respondent Pawlowski. Lee Wilson filed a brief for Taylor in No. 90-113. Thomas R. Michael filed a brief for respondent Dayton in † No. 90-114. opinion delivered the of the Court.

Justice Blackmun lung program, by Congress, The black created benefits Security to be administered first the Social Adminis (SSA) auspices Depart tration under the of the then-existent (HEW), ment of Health, Education, and Welfare and later (DOL). Department Congress of Labor authorized Departments, during respective these adopt their tenures, to regulations governing adjudication of claims for lung black benefits, but constrained the of Labor by providing that the DOL “shall not be more re litigation upon strictive than” HEW’s. This calls us to de complied termine whether the has Labor that constraint. I lung program

A The black originally benefits was enacted as Title IV of Safety the Federal Coal Mine Health and Act of (FCMHSA), § 901 1969 seq., 83 Stat. 792, 30 S.U. C. et provide totally benefits for miners disabled due at least in Jr.,

† Robert Stropp, H. Michael Dinnerstein filed a brief for the and United Mine Workers of America as curiae amicus urging reversal No. 89-1714.

Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal 90-113 and Nos. 90-114 and af- firmance in 89-1714 were filed for the by National Coal Association Wil- Hynan; liam E. and for the Compensation National Council on Insurance by Michael Camilleri.

684 employment, mine arising of coal out pneumoconiosis

part to miners. such of dependents and survivors (1988); 105, 108 S. Group Sebben, 488 U. v. Pittston Coal Compensa Director, Workers’ v.Co. Coal Mullins of Office (1987). 138 135, U. Dept. Labor, 484 S. Programs, tion of sys- a bifurcated Congress established Through FCMHSA, pneumoconiosis.1 by disabled compensating miners of tem by program administered temporary a created Part B thereof Secretary This HEW. auspices under the SSA on or filed processing of claims for program intended was part B under awarded Benefits 1972. 31, December before filed For claims Federal Government. paid were pro- permanent originally authorized part C after coordi- to be Labor, gram, administered compensation federally approved workers’ state nated with paid to be C were under awarded programs. Benefits employers. mining coal by the claimants’ authorized was of HEW FCMHSA, the Under regarding deter- permanent promulgate C. U. S. part B claims. adjudication of mination however, limited, Secretary’s was 921(b). discretion § eligibility defining under statutory presumptions by three suffering 921(c). claimant For program. part B years establish could pneumoconiosis who from rebuttable abe “shall employment, there employment.” such out arose pneumoconiosis his years of least Similarly, 921(c)(1). a miner for chronic as “a General Surgeon by the identified 1 Pneumoconiosis particles in dust fine coal accumulation by the caused disease chest as he described What 95-209, p. 5 Rep. No. lung.” S. human impairment, ventilation produces significant seldom simple pneumoconiosis blood. oxygen to lung transfer ability of the may reduce it but “in patient disease, serious ais more pneumoconiosis Complicated and other to dust complex reaction aas fibrosis massive progressive curs “usually produces complicated stage, its factors.” disability.” respiratory considerable impairment pulmonary marked Ibid.

685 respirable disease from employment “died who mine coal was his death presumption that rebuttable abe shall there 921(c)(2). Finally, was there pneumoconiosis.” to due presenting medical miner presumption that a irrebuttable an pneumoconiosis was complicated demonstrating evidence totally 921(c)(3). that condition. of aas result disabled promulgated presumptions, HEW these with Consistent stand- and methods prescribing the permanent lung under benefits establishing to black entitlement ards (1990). §§ to 410.476 410.401 CFR part B. See B unadjudicated backlog increasing with Dissatisfied resulting high denials of claim relatively rate and claims regulations, permanent application from redesignated Title and FCMHSA Congress amended in 1972 (Bene- Lung Act of Benefits Black Act as of that IV Rep. No. 92-743 Act). S. See 150. 86 Stat. fits States, General the United Comptroller General also Achievements, Congress: Report to Accounting Office, Lung Paying Black Costs and Problems, Administrative (September 16-18 Widows Their and Miners Coal to Benefits filed 1971, claims 1972) (nationally, 31, December as of 5, rate of 322,582, processed were claims 347,716, were extending percent). In addition 50.5 denial claim coverage prior living miners filed claims those B to January 1, before survivors filed July those 1973, 1, ways in several liberalized 1972 amendments First, part B claims. applicable to procedures criteria presumption statutory a fourth added amendments unable claimants pneumoconiosis for due total This X-ray disease. of the produce evidence employment years applied a claimant respiratory disabling totally of a presented evidence who pulmonary expressly rebut- limited Congress impairment. showing miner did presumption to a tal 686 pulmonary respiratory im- that his pneumoconiosis or

have 30 employment a coal mine. of out pairment arise did not rede- 921(c)(4). amendments § the 1972 Second, U. S. C. aon benefits permit of disability” award an to fined “total mining perform his coal to unable showing miner that a prior opposed re- comparable work—as or other duties unable to he was that demonstrate quirement the miner 902(f) prohibited from de- HEW § any job, perform see —and negative solely aof the basis on nying benefits a claim it eas- made 923(b). amendments § 1972 ray. Third, the X disabled had been who miner deceased of a ier for survivors unrelated a from cause died had pneumoconiosisbut due to §901. eligibility See for benefits. to demonstrate the disease determining “[i]n clear Finally, made amendments the [part evidence B], all relevant validity under claims the 923(b). § be considered.” shall Secretary of HEW the amendments, response to these prompt ‘permit “designed adopted interim backlog that had large claims’ processing the vigorous administering part B.” early phases of during developed 410.490(a) quoting 20 CFR S., at 488 U. Sebben, adjudicatory (1973).2 established interim These permit invocation B claims processing rules for by upon eligibility demonstration presumption of of a opportunity subsequent and a specified factors, claimant of administering program, to rebut SSA, for the presumption. permit claim- interim

Specifically, “to- miner is a a rebuttable invoke ants to 2 Secretary of HEW did not direct the 1972 amendments Although the Senate Report of regulations, interim new promulgate these strongly worded invi a contained Welfare and Public on Labor Committee (1972) (“Accordingly, the 92-743, p. 18 Rep. No. S. do so. tation to evidentiary rules adopt such expects Committee proc vigorous prompt permit as will criteria disability evaluation and in language with the consistent claims backlog large essing of amendments”). tent of these ways. in one of two pneumoconiosis” tally due disabled biopsy, ray, or an Xan can introduce the claimant First, 410.490(b)(1) indicating pneumoconiosis. CFR autopsy years least (i) miner with Second, for a ventilatory may introduce employment, claimant coal mine respiratory or presence establishing a chronic studies 410.490(b)(1)(h). § in case, In either pulmonary disease. must dem presumption, claimant also the invoke the order to in with “impairment accordance established onstrate employ (b)(1) coal out of arose section paragraph of this 410.490(b)(2). 410.456).” § (see §§ 410.416and ment eligibility presumption of invokes a claimant Once permit regulations re- 410.490(b), § HEW interim under doing showing his miner is upon by a the SSA buttal gainful comparable work, or is or mine work usual 410.490(c). § doing See capable work. such by changes adopted amendments statutory the 1972 The resulted application interim of HEW’s and the Lopatto, part The approvals B. See under surge of claims L. Program: Primer, 85 W. Va. Lung A 1983 Black Federal approval (1983)(demonstrating the overall 677, Rev. by substantially Decem- increased part had B claims rate for 1974). ex- the HEW Because 31, ber Secretary of program, part however, B pired part e., i. adjudicate claims, all C constrained Labor was by living and after miners, 1973, 30, after June filed those stringent more survivors, under 1973, 31, December at S., regulations. Sebben, U. See permanent HEW was Congress of Labor nor the 110. Neither the unwieldy of the application claims C content with regulations. Letter, dated permanent See and restrictive Kilberg, Labor, Solicitor J. Sept. of William 13, 1974, Department of Counsel, Rhinelander, General B. John p. 14 Rep. 94-770, appearing H. No. R. HEW, permanent application of the did the Not slowly, the DOL’s process but claims the DOL cause significantly that of the SSA. approval below rate claims Accordingly, Congress supra, turned Lopatto, 691. See program. lung again benefits to the black once attention its C (BLBRA), 92 Lung of 1977 Reform Act Black Benefits further liberal approved 1, 1978, March effective Stat. lung eligibility benefits several for black ized the criteria ways. pneumoconi expanded the definition the Act First, including respiratory “sequelae” disease, osis to include employ arising impairments coal mine pulmonary out of 902(b). required BLBRA Second, C. 30 U. ment. See S. board-eligible accept radi board-certified the DOL rays if interpretation met ologist’s X films of submitted thereby prohibiting the from quality DOL standards, minimal secondary denying assessment of aon a claim based radiologist. rays provided a Government-funded X 923(b). Finally, a fifth BLBRA added to entitlement structure eligibility altered the otherwise and long-term miner to of a deceased for it easier survivors make 902(f). 921(c)(5) §§ and benefits. See obtain statutory prerequisites liberalizing the In addition to the DOL the BLBRA authorized entitlement, benefit part processing C adopt for own interim its doing, Congress In 1980. so 31, March filed before claims by applied “[criteria the required the that the than criteria be more restrictive shall Labor . . . not 902(f)(2). 1973.” applicable filed on June to a claim pursuant authorization, to this Labor, adjudication regulations governing adopted the interim significantly from part differ These claims. C (1990). regulations. 727.203 CFR See 20 interim the HEW provisions presumption regulations include two The DOL provisions presumption in- in the HEW two to the similar (2) 727.203(a)(1) §§ Compare regulations. and terim (ii). 410.490(b)(l)(i) §§ eli- invoke the To and need a claimant however, provisions, two gibility these under mine of coal out “impairment . . arose . prove the not regu- interim required under employment,” was as 410.490(b)(2). §See lations. meth- three regulations add interim DOL addition, eligibility included presumption of invoking the ods DOL under Specifically, regulations. interim the HEW presumption of total invoke can regulations, claimant gas submitting by blood disability due impairment in presence anof demonstrate studies blood; lung oxygen alveoli from transfer presence establishing the submitting evidence medical other impairment; pulmonary respiratory disabling or totally aof no medical for whom miner deceased of a case or, submitting affidavit a survivor’s available, evidence 727.203(a)(3), (4), §§ disability. See demonstrating such (5). provide four methods Finally, DOL §727.203. under presumptions rebutting established regu in the HEW those provisions mimic of the Two showing the miner upon a permitting rebuttal lations, compara mining or perform, his is able performing, or (2). re §§ 727.203(b)(1) two The other See work. ble these Under cases. in these at issue provisions are buttal pneumoco disability due presumption of total provisions, a “[t]he establishes evidence if rebutted be can niosis or in whole arise did not miner death total “[t]he es evidence employment,” or if of coal out pneumoco have not, or did not, does miner tablishes 727.203(b)(3) §§ niosis.” I—I question whether present the us before cases The three HEW’s than” restrictive “more are interim DOL’s rebuttal and fourth third virtue agency’s inconsistent are provisions, therefore and Pauley statutory authority. BethEnergy v. 89-1714, No. Appeals for the Third Circuit con Mines, Inc., the Court of that the DOL interim were more re cluded BethEnergy Mines, Director, Inc. v. strictive. Office of Programs, Dept. Compensation Labor, 890 F. 2d Workers’ (1989). Pauley, pe the now-deceased husband of John Pauley, lung Harriet filed claim for black bene titioner years April after he had worked 30 in the 21, 1978, fits on Pennsylvania. Pauley stopped underground mines of work ing his claim for benefits. At a formal soon after he filed Judge hearing 5, 1987,the Administrative Law on November (ALJ) Pauley begun experience had found that shortness fatigue coughing, in and that breath, 1974, those gradually causing symptoms him worsened, had to leave his job Pauley in the mines. The ALJ also found that had ar requiring daily, thritis several medications had suffered a January cigarettes in and had smoked for 34 stroke years stopped in until he 1974. respondent BethEnergy pres-

Because did not contest the pneumoconiosis, ence of coal workers’ the ALJ found that the 727.203(a)(1). presumption had been invoked under Turn- ing Pauley evidence, the ALJ concluded that engaged comparable in his usual coal mine work or was not Pauley totally gainful and that work, disabled from mining comparable returning employment. to coal 727.203(b)(1) §§ weighed The ALJ then the evi- § 727.203(b)(3), dence submitted under and determined that respondent BethEnergy had sustained its burden of estab- lishing contributing was not a factor Pauley’s disability accordingly, and, total that his employ- did not “arise whole or out of coal mine 727.203(b)(3). ment.” See Carozza v. United States Steel (CA3 1984). Corp., 727 F. 2d 74 Having Pauley determined that was not entitled to receive lung regulations, black benefits under the DOL interim precedent apply Third ALJ felt constrained Circuit

691 Pauley’s con- He first claim. to HEW interim Pauley BethEnergy’s that concession respondent that cluded mining employment arising of coal out pneumoconiosis had disability total presumption of the to invoke sufficient was 410.490(b). § evi- the Because pneumoconiosis under to due ALJ inability the work, and Pauley’s demonstrated dence pre- 410.490(c) precluding of the § interpreted as disability is “showing total the claimant’s sumption that that employment,” ALJ found to his unrelated that carry rebuttal, and on BethEnergy its burden not could Pauley to benefits. entitled was reconsideration, its motion denied ALJ

After the unsuccessfully Review the Benefits BethEnergy appealed Appeals for sought Court review then It Board. pointed out that It reversed. That Third court Circuit. cre- Review Board the Benefits ALJ and decisions 2d, at 1299. F. disturbing circumstances.” “two ated extraordinary,” “surely ibid., that a it court found First, the totally Pauley from causes disabled was that determination to rebut was sufficient pneumoconiosis, which unrelated preclude 727.203(b)(3), re- would presumption under presumption under rebutting BethEnergy from spondent 410.490(c). to be “outcome it court considered Second, pro- is to Act purpose of the Benefits that determinative” part due to totally at least disabled miners benefits vide disability em- coal mine out of arises if findings unchallenged had made ALJ ployment, and that such out of even Pauley’s not arise did found it court 1299-1300. at employment. 2d, 890 F. [the regulations under no set “perfectly evident be statutorily may provide a claimant who Act] Benefits Id., may recover.” recovery nevertheless from barred 1300. Group Coal in Pittston

Asserting decision Court’s that this controlling (1988), because 488 U. S. Sebben, v. presump- the invocation concerned decision rebuttal, tion the court then concluded that Con- and not its gress’ by that the criteria used of mandate applicable restrictive than the criteria to a Labor be not more applied only to the 30, 1973, claim filed on June criteria for “totally determining disabled,” whether a claimant is not to Finally, pointed in rebuttal. the court out criteria used applied provi- if differ it that its result would not rebuttal 410.490(c) Pauley’s claim, because sions of (c)(1) subsections (2) §410.412(a), and make reference to which refers to a “totally pneumoconiosis.” being due to Ac- miner’s disabled cording there no reason Circuit, to the Third would be for regulations such a reference “unless it was the in- to include permit by showing a tention of the did not arise at least in from coal the claimant’s employment.” 2d, 890 F. at 1302. In cases us, 90-113, the two other now before No. Director, Coal Co. v. Workers’ Com Clinchfield Office of pensation Programs, Dept. Labor, and No. 90-114, of Director, Consolidation Coal Co. v. Workers’ Com Officeof pensation Programs, Dept. Appeals Labor, the Court of regula for the Fourth Circuit struck down the DOL interim Taylor, respondent applied 90-113, tions. a No. John lung having 12 black benefits in after worked for almost years underground loader and roof bolter in coal as Taylor properly mines. The found that had invoked the ALJ § 727.203(a)(3), eligibility for benefits under qualifying gas demonstrating based on arterial blood studies oxygen lungs impairment an in the transfer of from his to his proceeded weigh blood. The ALJ then the rebuttal evi X-ray consisting negative nonqualifying dence, evidence, ventilatory study reports respec scores, and several medical by tively by Taylor employer, petitioner submitted his Company. light evidence, Clinchfield of this Coal Taylor pneumoco ALJ concluded that neither suffered from totally Rather, niosis nor disabled. the evidence dem was Taylor suffered from chronic bronchitis caused onstrated obesity. The Benefits smoking and cigarette years decision concluding ALJ’s affirmed, Board Review evidence. supported substantial Taylor v. Appeals reversed. Clinchfield Court The dismissed first The court 2d 895 F. Co., Coal consid- be cannot DOL interim argument that the Taylor applied be- as HEW’s than restrictive more ered eligibility on based presumption of Taylor invoked cause available invocation gas a method studies, blood arterial and was HEW’s, under but DOL under provisions the rebuttal use unable therefore court 182. Id., at a benchmark. as the claim- how indifference” “matter of it was reasoned rejected the eligibility and presumption of the invoked ant in provisions evaluated must be the rebuttal argument that the fact provisions. “It is corresponding invocation fight of presumption and the substance of the establishment of number not the consequence case, in this is of which thereof establishment.” provides such for regulation which the Ibid. the isolation, provisions in

Focusing rebuttal DOL’s the on rebuttal fourth and third the that determined Circuit Fourth of entitlement elements “permit of more rebuttal methods regulations,” because HEW do the interim than benefits through “solely on attacks permit disability,” DOL while total element pres- disputing both the evidence consideration “allow dis- total between the connection pneumoconiosis and ence Accordingly, employment.” Ibid. ability coal mine and more were DOL that concluded court applica- § 410.490,and that in found those than restrictive 902(f).3 § C. S. 30 U. regulations violated of these tion 3 Sebben, 488 Group v. Coal Pittston in decision this Court’s light of 410.490(e) permit § as interpreted Appeals (1988), Court 105 U. S. the claimant’s showing a that on presumption ting rebuttal 2d, The court 183. F. at 895 employment. by coal caused Noting judge panel’s that the

One dissented. decision was Youghiogheny in in with the Sixth Circuit & conflict Ohio (1989), F. Milliken, Coal v. 2d 195 and with the Co. Pauley, in that Third Circuit he concluded those decisions congressional up- intent, “do less violence to and . . . avoid setting statutory 895 F. 184. 2d, scheme.” Dayton, respondent applied in 90-114, No. for

Albert having lung after as black benefits worked a coal years. Dayton miner found that had ALJ invoked ventilatory presumption eligibility based on test scores showing pulmonary condition. The then de- chronic ALJ Company petitioner termined that Coal had Consolidation 727.203(b)(2) §§ successfully presumption rebutted the under (4) by demonstrating Dayton pneumo- did not have any Dayton’s pulmonary impair- and, event, coniosis totally disabling. ment was not The Benefits Review Board concluding affirmed, that the medical evidence demonstrated Dayton’s pulmonary condition was unrelated to coal dust exposure, secondary smoking instead but was to his correctly ailments,” “other ALJ had concluded had rebutted Consolidation under 727.203(b)(4).4 Dayton The Fourth Circuit reversed. v. Consolidation (1990). Relying Coal 895 F. 2d 173 Co., on its decision 902(f) Taylor, Day required the court held that 30 U. S. C. adjudicated claim ton’s to be “under the less restrictive re § 410.490.” buttal standards of 895 F. at 175. 2d, Conclud ing regulations permit upon that the HEW did not rebuttal therefore remanded case for further consideration that It the of issue. appears that the Fourth has since from Circuit retreated this view and permit only the HEW interim now considers two rebuttal Director, v. Compensation methods. See Robinette Workers’ Office of (1990) Labor, order), Programs, Dept. (judgment 902 F. 2d 1566 cert. of pending, No. 90-172. 4 conclusion, light unnecessary In the of this Board found it to review successfully pre the determination that Consolidation had rebutted the (b)(2) sumption regulations. subsection of the interim under DOL

695 the have pneumoconiosis, not does claimant the that showing have does not Dayton that finding AL J’s the stated that court the on bearing no and has “is superfluous n. 176, Id., at case.” we of Appeals, the Courts among conflict the

In view them and consolidated cases three the certiorari granted construc statutory the issue resolve order hearing (1990).5 937 498 U. S. tion.

I—I I—I I—H “[cintería that provides that text statutory the turn to We more re- not . be . . shall of Labor the applied HEW the interim under applicable” the criteria than strictive S., 488 U. Sebben, 902(f)(2). See §C. U. S. 30 regulations. whether determine third must we Specifically, at 113. render the DOL provisions fourth rebuttal were than more restrictive DOL regulations the pre- rebuttal permit These provisions regulations. dis- the miner’s showing upon eligibility sumption mine em- out of coal in part or in whole arise did not ability pneumoconiosis.6 not have miner does ployment 5 concluded Circuit has Circuit, Seventh the Third addition In is not more regulation interim DOL provision of the rebuttal the third v. Old Ben Patrich by HEW. See applied criteria than the restrictive (1991). did ad Circuit 1482, The Seventh 1488 Co., 2d 926 F. Coal has refused also Sixth Circuit provision. The rebuttal the fourth dress interim of the DOL provisions and fourth third invalidate claims, all C provisions to apply these continues regulation, § 410.490 or under invoked regardless whether Milliken, F. 2d 866 Co. v. Coal Youghiogheny & Ohio §727.203. See 202 were the DOL Sebben, Court concluded invocation the DOL’s extent that HEW’s to the than restrictive more years of presumption without permit invocation provision did not did not Court S., The Sebben at 113. U. mining experience. See fourth rebut validity third and us: now before the issue address id., at 119. regulations. See DOL interim in the contained provisions tal 696

A specifically Congress constrained the Sec- In BLBRA, through retary the directive the cri- of Labor’s discretion applied part “not be more restrictive claims could teria C 902(f)(2). applied B claims. 30 U. S. C. than” that urge that this restriction is dissent claimants and the Secretary’s unambiguous, due the no deference is and that are more re- determination that her alternative, both the claimants In the strictive than HEW’s. regardless argue the statu- of whether and the dissent only interpretation tory in- of the HEW clear, the mandate is interpreta- is the warrants deference terim given of HEW. those tion principles position under- misunderstands view, our this agency interpretations, lying judicial as well as deference authority delegated scope of Labor to the BLBRA. ambigu- agency’s interpretation of to an Judicial deference implement provisions it authorized of the statutes ous political sensitivity proper roles of the reflects judicial A. Inc. v. Natural U. S. branches. See Chevron (1984) Council, 837, Inc., 467 U. S. Resources Defense (“[F]ederal constituency duty judges have no —have —who do”); legitimate policy respect those who choices made Intersection of Law & Silberman, see also Chevron—The (1990). Policy, L. 822-824 As 821, Wash. Rev. Geo. ambiguity in a illustrates, the resolution of itself Chevron policy question statutory than of law. more a text is often After Chevron, Administration Sunstein, Law and Congress, When 2085-2088 L. Rev. Colum. interpre- express delegation through of an or the introduction delegated policymak- statutory gap has structure, in the tive judi- agency, authority ing the extent of to an administrative policy agency’s is limited. determinations review of the cial (1990)(“A 638, 649 Barrett, Fruit v. 494 U. S. Adams Co. Cf. congressional precondition is a under Chevron to deference

697 authority”); S., 467 U. Chevron, delegation of administrative 864-866. at recognition our determina- informs precisely this

It is Secretary appropriate here. deference tion that highly complex tech- produced and Act has The Benefits classifica- program. and The identification regulatory nical require signifi- necessarily eligibility criteria medical tion of grounded judgment expertise exercise entail the cant appropri- circumstances, courts In policy those concerns. by Congress to make agency ately entrusted to defer the Occupational v. policy Martin See determinations. such 144, 152-153 499 S. Comm’n, U. Safety Health Review Peo- Lincoln (1991); America v. Central Co. Aluminum (1984). Utility ples’ Dist., S.U. Secretary’s interpre- to to defer the declined Sebben, we 902(f)(2), including as as used “criteria” the term tation of evidentiary we found criteria, because only but medical provision be in that to Congress’ all criteria to include intent re-With 113-114, 116. Sebben, S., 488 U. manifest. than,” Con- phrase restrictive . . . more spect “not to phrase ex- similarly be read cannot gress’ clear: intent is Secretary authority interpretive to delegation cept a as of Labor. delegate to to Congress in the BLBRA intended

That in the policymaking Secretary discretion broad of Labor from text is clear promulgation interim of her Congress history provision. de- of this and the statute regu- adopt require the DOL clined authority delegation re- Rather, verbatim. lations . . . more “not be quires DOL’s delegation made Further, the HEW’s. than” restrictive technological program evolve as that the intention Human Re- on Committee The Senate expertise matured. stated: sources Secretary of belief

“It is the Committee’s authority statutory ... have sufficient should Labor eligibility It is intended that .... criteria establish authority of Labor will pursuant this incorporate every his within make effort by medical made the advances the extent feasible ... diagnosis treatment of science promulgation in 1972 of the . . . since Rep. eligibility No. 95- criteria.” S. medical HEW’s p. 13 Report that indicated addition, In the Conference simply in- when it ministerial more than task was DOL’s regulations Secretary [new] shall not that “such formed provide [the interim criteria than restrictive more determining except regulations], claims under such that considered.” evidence shali be medical criteria all relevant added). (1978)(emphasis p. Rep. 95-864, No. H. R. Conf. Secretary’s authority by Congress, delegated then, As promulgate regulations . . . more restrictive “not interim necessarily regulations entails the interim the HEW than” regulations interpret authority and the discretion HEW’s regulations in- promulgate on a reasonable based interim delegation congressional terpretation From this thereof. Secretary’s judicial deference. entitlement to derives Secretary argue if the that even also The claimants regulations interpretation of the HEW interim Labor’s generally would not deference, such deference entitled to interpretation appropriate that in this instance because be litigation throughout explanation changed without has general persuaded. matter, As a are not cases. We these compelling judicial deference is less the case for course, positions respect agency are inconsistent with that Georgetown previously Bowen v. Univer- views. See held (1988). Hospital, However, sity 204, 212-213 488 U. S. unswervingly view that the DOL has held statutory man- with the are consistent interim regula- than the HEW interim restrictive and not more date obviously the structure of the informed This view tions. suggesting response regulations. to comments DOL’s might violate proposed interim the DOL’s 902(f)(2) they required be all relevant evidence because Secretary replied determining eligibility, the considered explicit, Security regulations, simi- less while “the Social in re- can be considered larly the evidence which not limit do Reg. 36826 presumption.” 43 Fed. butting the interim faithfully position advanced has been this Moreover, promulgated. were since each Accordingly, the Sec- g., 119. S., at Sebben, 488 U. e. See, regulations warrants defer- retary’s her interim defense this Court. from ence

B Secretary’s position is entitled Having determined position is reason this whether must decide deference, we at 845. claimants S., 467 U. Chevron, able. See simply by argue resolved can be that this issue the dissent argument regulations. This comparing the two regula existence of straightforward; the mere it reasons that statutory not permitting elements tory provisions of regulations the renders the HEW interim under rebuttable regulations and, than HEW’s more restrictive interim DOL Secretary’s interpretation un consequence, the renders as a Specifically, Arg. the 22-24. of Tr. Oral reasonable. See regu interim that the HEW the dissent assert claimants and provision, invocation plainly either the no contain lations factual that directs subsection, in the rebuttal subsection disability or the existence inquiry causation of into issue Accordingly, read claimants’ pneumoconiosis. under the of the DOL ing regulations, manner which there is no of the “not. . . more restric to be can be seen interim regulations. tive than” the straightforward regulatory not so however, is scheme,

The have noted to be. We make it out would the claimants as regulations. Byzantine See of these character before (the presumption is “drafted at 109 second S., 488 Sebben, U. (dissenting opin- manner”); confusing id., at in a most ion) “promulgated (assuming a scrivener’s the drafters error”). Secretary presents more rea- view, In our complex regulatory an interpretation structure, this soned providing co- interpretation additional that has the benefit regulations. among interim two the statute herence Secretary’s interpretation underlying premise The regulations is were HEW interim adopted who were disabled due miners ensure that employment arising would pneumoconiosis of coal mine out lung program. Under the from the black benefits receive congressional Secretary’s intent to inter disserves view, it recovery by miners pret to allow HEW’s pneumoconiosis did total or whose have do not who employment. part, their from at least in arise, not Mining Usery Co., agree. Turner Elkhorn v. We (1976)(“[A]n operator for can be liable n. 21 22, U. S. mine”); employment arising in a coal out Compensa Director, Workers’ v. Coal Co. Mullins Officeof (“[I]f Programs, Labor, at 168 Dept. S., 484 U. tion type suffering actually of ailment from the miner is justification Congress concerned, is no there which benefits”). presuming miner is entitled to petitioners contend and the nonfederal regulations per adjudications HEW interim under SSA inquiry specified re third and fourth the factual mitted According regulations. provisions the DOL buttal (b)(2) provisions, Secretary, invocation of HEW’s subsection incorporated into that sub provisions reference and the rebuttal meth third fourth of DOL’s section, do the work (b)(2) regulations pro HEW interim Subsection ods. eligibility presumption of a invoke that in order to vides “impairment established must demonstrate claimant (b)(1) out section arose paragraph of this in accordance 410.456).” (see §§ 410.416 employment 20 coal mine 410.416(a) 410.490(b)(2)(1990). provides: § Section CFR years in the or more employed miner was “If a suffering from suffered mines, and coal Nation’s presumed, in the absence be pneumoconiosis, it will pneumoco- contrary, that to the persuasive evidence employment.” such out niosis arose §410.456. also See 410.490(b)(2) § requirement in interprets The impairment the miner’s that demonstrate the claimant that comparable to the employment” as mine coal out of “arose oper- permits mine provision, which rebuttal third DOL’s in whole “did not arise miner’s that ator show 727.203(b)(3). § employment.” mine or in out provision, the Sec- respect fourth rebuttal DOL’s With pneumoconiosis as defines retary emphasizes the statute that employ- arising of coal out . . . disease dust “a chronic 902(b). Accordingly, she views C.S. 30 U. See ment.” invocation §§410.416 in HEW’s 410.456 reference n acknowledgment sections these within provision, and persua- presumed “in the absence be is to causation that demonstrating miner a contrary,” that as evidence sive in- not pneumoconiosis could from suffer not to is shown who presumption.7 HEW’s voke adopt the Third and Consolidation Clinchfield Petitioners Pauley on relied Pauley. court reasoning The Circuit’s 410.412(a) provisions rebuttal in the reference “totally being disabled miner’s a (1), refers turn which in that reasoned Third Circuit The pneumoconiosis.” due to intention “the indicate must reference this (b)(2) in HEW’s subsection in Sebben conclusion Court’s the Secre foreclose provision does not a terim was, provision clear made Sebben Court as the tary’s argument, S., at 120. Sebben, 488 U. See requirement.” nonetheless, “substantive a meaningful difference no “there court Patrick agree with We allows evi and then presumption creates procedure which between place if first in the denies which and one it to rebut dence 2d, 1488. Patrich, 926 F. is offered.” evidence the same

702 showing permit

[of HEW] that the claimant’s employ- part disability from coal mine at least did not arise F. at 1302. 2d, ment.” 890 adopted respond has not that the

The claimants (b)(2). Specifically, reading natural of subsection the most years argue miners who have the claimants requirements satisfy experience of subsection and (b)(1) automatically of causation that obtain thereby satisfy §410.456 §410.416 the causa- confers, and or requirement In addition, in Act. the claim- inherent tion provi- point in the HEW rebuttal that the reference ants out 410.412(a)(1) only may § a reference best be read as sions “comparable gainful work,” of the term to the definition 410.412(a). disability provision of While causation not to the parsing impene- possible of these it that the claimants’ accepted canons consistent with trable would be Secretary’s interpre- it is axiomatic that construction, by grammati- natural one need not be the best or most tation Prod- EEOC v. Commercial cal or other standards. Office Secretary’s Rather, Co., ucts 486 U. S. Ibid.; warrant deference. need be reasonable to view Mullins, S., 484 U. at 159. Secretary’s interpreta- claimants’ assertion that the ultimately contrary plain language of the statute

tion is (b)(l)(i) (ii) that subsections on their contention rests presump- regulations create a “conclusive” the HEW regard compe- to the existence of tion of entitlement without demonstrating the miner does not did tent evidence pneumoconiosis or that the miner’s not have employment. argument This coal mine defi- not caused premise respects. claimants’ is incon- First, in two cient authorizing which ex- statute, the text of the sistent with question presumptions pressly provides will be 921(c)(1),(2), (4), §§ and re- rebuttable, see 30 U. S. C. evi- all relevant to consider of HEW quires 923(b).8 B. See under claims in adjudicating dence conclu- terms their do not Second, the presumptions In entitlement. of element statutory any establish sively (c), the in subsection methods two rebuttal forth the setting be the would they that provide HEW did not of admit the claimants fact, In rebuttal. of methods exclusive for “coined” they ais term “conclusively presume” that Although 34. Arg. Tr. of Oral argument. purposes an infer- may support of rebuttal two methods delineation of methods to exclude drafter intended ence guidance no provides inference such an specified, not so inconsistent a regulation render would its where application statute. authorizing of the language the purpose with n. 182 (recognizing Rev., L. Sunstein, 90 Colum. alterius “is a exclusio unius est expressio the principle inferring reliability dubious in of the light one questionable Products cf. Commercial silence”); intent from specific Office more (rejecting opinion) at 120 S., (plurality 486 U. Co., inter- such an because statutory language reading natural to be con was intended presumptions at issue That no element provisions remaining two language of the indicated is further clusive its Congress demonstrated 921(c)(3), §In statute. in section this a miner for applicable to presumption, ability an irrebuttable to create complicated presence of demonstrates the evidence the medical whom 921(c)(4), only section of telling is Perhaps more pneumoconiosis. rebuttal. methods of the available Congress addressed statute which eligibility presumption of a rebuttable section, Congress created In that cpal employment, mine years more or miner with applicable respira totally disabling the existence of demonstrates evidence whom pneumoconiosis. complicated reveal raysX do not whose tory disease but provided: “The Sec expressly Congress presumption, this respect With (A) such establishing only by presumption retary may such rebut (B) respiratory his or that not, pneumoconiosis, not, or did have miner does with, em of, in connection or arise out did not impairment pulmonary in this section limiting provision, as a mine.” Written ployment a coal among are methods these rebuttal understanding that Congress’ dicates provisions. to other respect with permitted those . . . plainly or futile results “absurd lead to would

pretation whole”) (in- as a the legislation with the policy at variance omitted). marks ternal quotation is untena- Secretary’s interpretation asserting essentially argue claimants

ble, the in con- interim regulations the HEW justified interpreting According statute. authorizing their formance with administering charged officials the HEW claimants, in- the HEW drafting and with benefits program black lung virtually impossible that it was terim believed impair- respiratory a miner’s whether medically determine his or whether by pneumoconiosis caused actually ment was employment. of his coal arose out total instructed uncertainty, medical Faced with such of the large vigorous processing the “prompt ensure 410.490(a) (1990), the claim- see 20 CFR claims,” backlog factual inqui- from its criteria HEW omitted assert ants pneumoconi- the existence of causation disability ries into such inquiries conclusion that on a “cost/benefit” osis based little probative delay yet generate inordinate would engender Post, view. a similar dissent presents The evidence.9 716-719. to the HEW’s Coal argument reference support this 9 Theclaimants they represents agency’s (1979), claim which Benefits Manual

Miner’s regulation. Claimants assert that interpretation of its contemporaneous permit HEW interim suggests” the manual “nowhere disability pneumoconiosis or causation. into the existence inquiry factual in that HEW understood its manual, however, not demonstrate does with facts similar to DOL’s third and preclude rebuttal terim best, ambiguous with re At this document is provisions. fourth Manual, susceptible of rebuttal. See Part statutory spect elements IB6(e) “may to benefits of entitlement IV, (stating (3) clearly autopsy findings establish no Biopsy . if . . be rebutted exists”). that, outlining revealing find it more We makes clear that regulations, the manual of the interim general structure of a coal miner’s total to benefits on the basis entitlement “[t]o establish the evidence nec a claimant must submit disability pneumoconiosis, due to totally . . . . disabled coal miner . . who is essary that he is a to establish We recognize that the SSA, under the regu- lations, appeared to award benefits to miners whose adminis- trative files contained scant evidence of eligibility. See The Comptroller General of the United States, General Account- ing Office, Report to Congress: Examination of Allegations Concerning Administration of the Black Benefits Lung Pro- gram 6-10 (1976), included on Hearings H. R. 10760 and S. 3183 before the Subcommittee on Labor of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., 440-444 We are not, however, persuaded that this circumstance requires the Secretary to award black lung benefits to claimants do who not have pneumoconiosis or whose did not arise in whole inor out of coal mine employment. As an initial matter, contemporaneous analyses of claims approved by the HEW provide little sup- port argument the HEW made a “cost/benefit” decision to forgo inquiry into disease existence or disability causation. Rather, many of the claims allegedly on awarded basis insufficient evidence involved miners who were unable to present sufficient evidence of medical disability, not those who did not suffer from pneumoconiosis or were dis- abled by other causes. See ibid.; see also The Comptroller General the United States, General Accounting Office, Program to Black Pay Lung Benefits to Miners and Their Improvements Are Needed (1977); 45-47 H. R. Survivors — Rep. (1977) No. 95-151, 73-74 pp. (Minority Views and Sepa- Views). rate Moreover, this argument ignores the entirely in advances medical that technology have occurred the since of promulgation the HEW interim regulations, advances that Congress could not have intended either HEW or the DOL in ignore the administering program. See S. Rep. No. 95- 13 p. Finally, we do not accept the implicit premise of this argu- ment: that the Secretary cannot prevail she is unless able to to, due pneumoconiosis, pneumoconiosis his that out employ- arose of Id., ment in the IV, coal Nation’s mines.” Part IB1.

706 interim the of interpretation her that

demonstrate inter- contemporaneous HEW’s comports with regulations above, stated isAs regulations. those of pretation is interim HEW’s of interpretation Secretary’s inter- An reasonable. is long itas so deference entitled their with agency’s an harmonizes that pretation claim- reasonable, and presumptively is authorizing statute un- us persuaded not have ants case. this in founded IV conclude We 902(f)(2) in S. C. U. inconsistently with unreasonably or presump- permit the promulgating with rebutted be lung benefits black entitlement of tion not, or did not, does miner demonstrating that evidence not, does miner’s or have Accordingly, employment. of out arise not, did or 89-1714. No. in Circuit Third judgment affirm we 90-113 No. Circuit Fourth judgments The remanded are cases those reversed, and are 90-114 No. costs opinion. No this consistent proceedings further cases. any these allowed are so ordered. isIt consideration part no took Kennedy Justice litigation. this decision dissenting. Scalia, Justice language regulatory disputed dissent. respectfully I Chev- think not do I ambiguous, and isit complex, but Re- Natural v. Inc. A. U. S. Chevron see deference, ron (1984),requires S. U. Inc., Council, sources Defense ad- construction implausible strained accept the tous judg- my (DOL). Labor Department by the vanced is entitled us before claimants one least ment statute. under benefits

I—I A our Chevron Court misconstrues matter, the As an initial agen- requires to an we defer jurisprudence. Chevron organic determine interpretation once we cy’s statute of its ambiguous. that the contends No one is that that statute (“shall statutory language more be restrictive not relevant than”) Group Sebben, v. ambiguous. Pittston Coal (1988) particular (explaining that 113-114 488 U. S. regula- only question surrounds phrase). serious Department Education, Health, the then-extant tions of agree (HEW) I refers. to which statute and Welfare “Byzan- perhaps complex, even are that those invoke alone insufficient to ante, at 699—but tine,” appropriate rel- where the Deference is deference. Chevron yield carefully more than one language, considered, can evant only pos- discerning interpretation, where not reasonable taxing inquiry. requires is a Chevron interpretation sible ambiguities be resolved are to recognition in statutes implementing a dec- charged them, not agencies statutory difficult, becomes construction when that, laration agencies regulatory do it up let hands and our will throw we my referred view for us. although meaning, susceptible one

present are statute immediately meaning is not they that that intricate are so accessible. ambiguous, it would were if

But even deference. is entitled of Labor follow that requires jurisprudence us defer Nothing Chevron in our ambiguous agency’s interpretation of agency’s another one proposition precisely in Mar- rejected regulations. We Comm’n, 499 Safety Review Occupational and Health tin v. Safety Occupational holding (1991), U. S. (OSHRC) not entitled Commission Health Review regula- Labor’s interpreting deference incursions OSHRC’s Having to rebuff used Chevron tions. greedy use Chevron for the it seems bit there, my here. In attack cross-border own the DOL’s to launch regard only legitimate to deference claimant view, the agency drafted them. present is the B my interpretive any is, view, issue here event, In suggests. Title the Court than much less difficult 902(f)(2) applied states: “Criteria U. C.S. April prior lung [to 1, filed claims ... black

of Labor [i. not be less fa- shall e., restrictive not be more 1980,]shall applicable claimants] to a claim criteria than the vorable applied The criteria Secre- 1973.” on filed June tary are as follows: of Labor

“§727.203 Presumption. Interim “(a) Establishing presumption. A miner interim pre- employment engaged . . . will be mine coal who totally pneumoconiosis . . . disabled due to to be sumed requirements following medical met: if one of “(1) roentgenogram (X-ray), biopsy, or au- A chest (see topsy existence of establishes the title); §410.428 this

“(2) presence Ventilatory of a establish the studies pulmonary respiratory disease . . . or chronic “(3) presence gas . . . demonstrate studies Blood lung oxygen impairment from the in the transfer of of an . . . alveoli to the blood

“(4) pres- . . . establishes medical evidence Other pulmonary disabling respiratory totally or of a ence impairment;

“(b) adjudicat- presumption. In Rebuttal of subpart, ing evi- all relevant medical this a claim under para- presumption in shall be considered. dence (a) graph if: shall rebutted this section be inis, individual “(1) establishes The evidence comparable and or work doing mine coal usual his fact, title); 410.412(a)(1) (see § or this gainful work "(2) it is established evidence light of all relevant work usual do his able to the individual 410.412(a)(1) (see § gainful comparable work title); or this

“(3) the total establishes The evidence part out inor in whole arise did not the miner of or death employment; or mine coal not, does miner “(4) establishes The evidence §727.203 20 CFR pneumoconiosis.” have not, or did were 1973, on June governing filed claims The criteria § 410.490, regulations, CFR in HEW forth set part: provide relevant in which respect miner

“(b) a presumption. With Interim July . . . 1, 1973, before benefits for a-claim files who totally due disabled presumed be be miner will such if: pneumoconiosis ... requirements met: following

“(1) medical One of (X-ray), biopsy, au- or “(i) roentgenogram A chest (see pneumoconiosis topsy the existence establishes §410.428); or employed at least for

“(ii) a miner case In the employ- comparable mine underground years or in presence of a ventilatory establish studies ment, . . . pulmonary disease respiratory or chronic “(2) in accordance impairment established The mine of coal (b)(1) out arose section paragraph of this 410.456). (see §§410.416 and employment in presumption Presumption. “(c) The Rebuttal of may if: (b) be rebutted paragraph this section “(1) fact, that the individual in is, There is evidence doing comparable gainful coal mine work or his usual (see §410.412(a)(1)),or work “(2) including physical performance evidence, Other . that the individual is able to do his tests . . establish comparable gainful work usual coal work (see 410.412(a)(1)).” relationship regulations apparent between the two they large part, and, simi-

because use similar structure language. lar Both allow claimants to invoke pneumoconiosis upon presentation due to (the provide medical evidence certain for types two of medical evidence while the DOL four). ways provide specify Both certain which that presumption may regulations, be rebutted. The HEW how- (both specify relating two methods of ever, disability), to the extent of the while the DOL (the expressed reg- authorize four methods two the HEW (1) plus ulations two more: did not (2) disability, that the miner cause does not have pneumoconiosis).

Obviously, regulations provide opportuni if the DOL more they ties rebuttal, are less favorable to claimants. I quite apparent they present think it The do. case is il Pauley presumption by lustrative. Claimant invoked the submitting X-ray pneumoconiosis, pursuant evidence of 727.203(a)(1). § BethEnergy, employer, rebutted the 727.203(b)(3) § by arguing pursuant to that al Pauley though pneumoconiosis had it did not cause his dis ability. proceeded regula Had the case under the HEW Pauley’s presentation tions, would been same, have 727.203(a)(1).1 § 410.490(b)(l)(i), § counterpart under regulations separate provision 1 The HEW also contain a that would required Pauley have to show that his medical condition arose from work 410.490(b)(2). ing requirement a coal mine. While that is not set separate provision regulations, forth as a in the presumably DOL it is a things BethEnergy, have been different: however, would For 727.203(b)(3) counterpart regu- in the HEW does not have a contemplated by expressly lations. not in fact disabled— is that the claimant is Pauley concededly appears, therefore, was. It but challenged BethEnergy link the causal be- not have could disability under the HEW and the tween the no defense. thus would have had self-evidently my argument correct and is view this complexity regulatory only by obscured the technical opposed statutory provisions. structure, as But regulations, language, simple. the HEW we actual Under by showing may a “a” or “x” be rebutted “x,” assume but regulations, “x,” we likewise assume the DOL “b.” Under by showing may or “c” or a of “a” or “b” but “x” be rebutted argue given struc- that, sense to this “d.” It defies common in fact and that identical, are ture, the two showing Pauley, of “c” claim could be defeated whose by showing was no worse off under the “b,” of “a” or but precisely argument regime. Yet that is the Court latter accepts. supported by

Pauley’s reading is further commonsense regula- nothing about the HEW fact that there is remarkable severely limiting The introduction to those tions’ rebuttal. regulations states: Lung Congress enacting

“In Act of the Black gen- adjudication large backlog ofthe claims noted not await the establish- erated the earlier law could development of medical tests not ment of facilities and presently pneumo- due to available to evaluate must be handled under that such claims coniosis, and 727.203(b)(4), pneumoconiosis. requires § that the miner have of which arising work in a specifically defined as a disease from Pneumoconiosis is 902(b). Pauley’s pneu- § is not contested that coal mine. It U. S. C. it, than his other in the rather moconiosis arose from work mine — ailments, disability. the cause of his was light re- limited medical of in the present circumstances Congress Accordingly, techniques. the and sources adopt Secretary would expectancy that the its stated evidentiary evaluation rules and interim such processing vigorous prompt permit and as would criteria 410.490(a). § backlog large . . . claims the perfect makes on rebuttal limitation context, the In this pneumoconiosis was Litigation existence over sense. types specified claimants introduced If circumscribed: portion of the supporting claim, their evidence medical avoiding time- established—thus be deemed case would consuming conflicting which, exchange evidence medical knowledge available, technology then given scientific Similarly, litiga- any likely event. to be inconclusive was and the the disease disabil- link between causal tion over the questions medical ity poses more difficult even —was —which entirely by if a miner had eliminated because disabled, he was disabled was permit- regulations pneumoconiosis. hand, theOn other disability, area litigation an the existence of as to ted full equal knowledge task was scientific medical where courts) (and typically think themselves agencies and where assessments.2 make able to reasoned at the were apparently interim addition, In Literally of cases thousands thought rebuttal. to limit time nei- pursuant 1970’s; in the to these decided were single employers cited a have nor the ther the Government §410.490 interim did not use regulations HEW permanent its an also outlined permanent Significantly, presumption. pneumoconi a miner’s contesting link between procedure for extensive provision that this The fact 410.426. his disabilities. osis and thought dis procedures suggests that in the not contained view, conforms an there —and not be issue ability causation would aas blunt 410.490(a), serve would presumptions the interim see procedures could be evidentiary full adjudication until instrument developed. by regula- the DOL in allowed which the rebuttal

instance permitted advanced, nor have or indeed was even was tions any they single HEW, comment cited a suggesting any such rebuttal claimant, or commentator extraordinary. my I not find that available. do regulations, only reading reasonable view that is the thought unsurprising read them other- that no one and it is precisely in read them Pittston that is how we Indeed, wise. question specifically Although before the was not Coal. regulations, describing generally we in the two sets Court, stated: regula provisions

“[T]he of the interim Labor rebuttal grounds permi[t] on the avail . . . rebuttal tion (§410.490(c)), regulation but HEW able the interim disability or death of the also on the basis that ‘the total mine in whole or out of coal miner did not arise employment’ not, not, or did have or that ‘the miner does §§ 727.203(b)(1)-(4).” pneumoconiosis.’ 488 U. S., added). (emphasis I—1 hH (albeit Although clear com- I think HEW why specific arguments plex) I turn now to the face, on their they read to limit rebuttal nevertheless not be should opportunities.

A contends First, the Government provisions actually provisions two new rebuttal include the principal apparently claim here centers added DOL. (b)(2) regulations. provi- upon That of the HEW subsection that the “im- claimant must demonstrate sion states that the (b)(1) paragraph pairment established accordance employment.” 20 CFR out of coal mine this section arose 410.490(b)(2) (1990). requirement, the Government This provision, comparable third rebuttal to DOL’s insists, is employer permits that the miner’s disabil- to show which argu- employment. That ity from not arise did (b)(2) “impairment” might in subsection if be correct ment “disability” in the the same as meant the HEW (b)(2) of the regulations. not. Subsection It does DOL “impairment” established regulations to the. refers HEW proof (b)(1); of the exist- discusses that subsection subsection (b)(2) “impairment,” then, is pneumoconiosis. The ence of employer open under the it is the Thus, the disease itself. Pauley’s pneu- example, that show, HEW employment. But mine not arise from did moconiosis question agrees is everyone it relevant that did—the here pneumoconiosis. disability Pauley’s from his arose whether regula- diverges for DOL’s HEW, from is where DOL That arise from the proof not did tions allow regu- employment; the HEW mine from coal and thus disease impairment showing e., require a the lations —i. employment and pneumoconiosis coal mine from the —arose impairment and the presume link between the the causal disability. (b)(2) of the that subsection contends

The Government provi- equates rebuttal fourth also the provision regulations. The fourth sion the DOL ground the does have claimant on the allows rebuttal par- argument pneumoconiosis. I think the Government’s only partially. notes, tially As Government the correct—but (1) proof a proof elements: involves of two (2) employ- arose from coal which disease, chronic dust (b)(1) says the of the HEW ment. Subsection (by says point, prove do how to it first and must the claimant thereby specified submitting rais- medical the evidence (b)(2) says ing presumption). that the claim- Subsection (to presump- point prove second which must also ant irrelevant). finding pneumoconiosis, To contest tion (1) may argue the miner has employer either towish mine em- arise from coal it did not disease but chronic dust (2) a chronic ployment; miner does not have dust (b)(2) regulations allows of the HEW disease. Subsection says nothing argue employer it about former, but (b)(1) argument, the latter via bars latter; subsection specified presumption, medical evi- if the miner offers employer argue DOL’s fourth rebuttal allows dence. point impermissibly, additional re- offers thus, either —and employer. course to the yet employers of the statute offer another contortion The 410.490(c) states that rebuttal effect. Section to the same through may inis, fact, “evidence that the individual be made gainful comparable doing coal mine work or his usual 410.412(a)(1)).” (see incorporated provision work reads as follows: reference

“(a) totally disabled due A miner shall be considered pneumoconiosis if: “(1) prevents engaging him from His gainful re- in immediate area of his residence work comparable any quiring to those of the skills and abilities previously engaged he in a mine or mines which work period regularity and over a substantial some with time provision begins references to the miner’s

Because this employers pneumoconiosis, believe it to due authorizing argu- to construe it as be reasonable would that miner does not have the disease or ment either that the disability. causing I do not find this a is not the disease plausible 410.412(a)(1). explanation to The of the reference cross-referencing provision logical in- that reason for complete explicit provision the more rebuttal clude within the incorporated “gainful section work” definition intended to create additional Had HEW affords. explicitly simply provisions, and in so, have done it would provisions, parallel rather than back- other rebuttal with the through incorporation handedly, reference. companies’ apparently cross- concedes The Court reading argument most natural of the is not the reference Secretary’s view need that “the but concludes statute, at 702. Ante, deference.” to warrant reasonable be foregoing argument reasonable even think While I do not (nor Secretary deference, see entitled I think the do Secretary 707-708), not herself does supra, I note at speculation parties’ what Certainly private toas it. advance thought no deference. warrants have could B upon its of attack centers line second The Government’s regulations, rebuttal, limit read to if claim that the HEW Lung That ar- Act of 1972. Benefits the Black would violate depart willing more gument potential we are force, for has adhering language to it import when natural from the uncon- regulation or a statute unauthorized a would render however, important outset, to note It is stitutional. regard. heavy burden this has that the Government challenged before this Court been HEW Had the have Chev- we would owed statute, with the inconsistent as HEW). (of Govern- ron deference showing, depends argument that a present on ment’s produces than reading less of the natural produces an unrea- reading it statute, but the best one. sonable accepts, “it argues, the Court

The Government interpret congressional HEW’s intent to disserves recovery by who do not have miners allow arise, not did pneumoconiosis total or whose employment,” 700, ante, at part, their coal from least in permitted rebuttal on these have HEW thus must and grounds say I so. think did not if its even necessarily adjudication in- unlikely. Any claims most accuracy speed and the a tradeoff between volves presumptions above, the HEW adjudication. As discussed expense speed avowedly designed at the enhance were 410.490(a), development pending § of more accuracy, see preclu- presumptions, procedures. their As with all reliable possibility open litigation of some issues left full sion of per- in which, would receive benefits that some claimants necessary they That is a be entitled. would not world, fect possibly complex attempting consequence and to resolve say delay. I cannot with a minimum of claims indeterminate policy striking violated a clear in a balance HEW such lung up Congress, Congress the black itself had taken adjudication perception of a in 1972in because issue moving slowly. too of claims was provisions specific argued that certain is next

It authorizing later the methods of rebuttal mandate statute according Specifically, “the adopted Court, DOL. presump- expressly provides authorizing . . . statute 921(c) §§ question rebuttable, see 30 U. S. C. in will be tions (4), (1), (2), requires con- of HEW to and adjudicating claims .... evidence all relevant sider 923(b).” nothing § I see Ante, at 702-703. S. C. U. on rebut- contradicts HEW’s limitation however, that 921(c)(1) suffering provides: “If a miner who is tal. Section years employed pneumoconiosis for ten from or suffered rebuttable coal mines there shall be a or more or more one pneumoconiosis presumption em- arose out of such his simply provision ployment.” to the issue irrelevant That exist- as to either the rebuttal must be allowed of whether link between the disease or the causal ence of purport disability. The HEW do relating presumption the link be- an irrebuttable establish employment in coal mines. tween the disease 921(c)(2), provides: point “If a Slightly which more on years employed more in one or for ten miner was deceased respirable disease there from a mines and died more coal presumption due to that his death was shall be a rebuttable plausible pneumoconiosis.” that section as fore- It is to read establishing closing an irrebuttable from years’ solely service. after 10 on death of causation based they Rather, do. HEW is not what But that upon years’ presumption based irrebuttable establish an It is evidence. plus additional medical substantial service say a establishes certain evidence not inconsistent persuasive evi- presumption additional, more rebuttable presumption. irrebuttable establishes an dence 921(c)(4) for it establishes relevant, a the most is Section showing pneumoco- upon presumption a based Secretary “[t]he part that in relevant It then niosis. states (A) establishing only presumption may rebut such pneumoconiosis . . .”. not, have not, or did such miner does added.) provision (Emphasis true that this It is regulations. provision of DOL the fourth rebuttal tracks ways 921(c)(4) permissive. It establishes However, may Secretary does not but rebut which It is not inconsistent require use them. that the that such rebut- decide statute for with the expense attempts than involve more administrative would tal declining adopt regulations they justify thus to could option. exercise statutory my conflict claim a colorable view,

In “[i]n 923(b), provides deter- which on based part, validity mining all relevant evi- under this of claims argues The with Government be considered.” dence shall presumptions precludes the use that this some force evidence. That of all relevant allow the introduction do not respect argument of- to evidence is an unanswerable reasonably maintainable, I it think the claimants. fered apply preclusion to evidence of- does however, against time them. At the fered paid employers, adopted, the benefits re- HEW, not were presumptions, adopting quired its the Act. under limiting to sustain its own it could the evidence offer presumption provisions effect, position. were, upon compelling may have been based well waiver—which efficiency. I think the stat- of administrative considerations ambiguous Secretary ute is at least as to whether could elect not to contest certain claims based on evidence. Since (of HEW) we owe the Chevron deference con- struing say I if statute, that, cannot had (as position apparently promulgating taken that he did in regulations), accepted permissible we would not have it as a interpretation.

C argument regula Government’s final is the HEW expressly preclude grounds tions do not rebuttal on other specified. expanded if Thus, than those even rebuttal is not specifically provided it for, foreclosed; neither is the statute adopting regulations simply ambiguous the HEW as to its availability, and we should to DOL’sview defer that it should regulations say exist. It is true that the HEW do not only ways presumption. these are the two to rebut the That implication, suggested by is, however, the reasonable as is hoary expressio canon of construction, unius est exclusio provision general alterius. When a sets forth a rule followed by specific exceptions to that one must rule, assume—absent exceptions other evidence—that no further are intended. argues principle expressio The Court unius is not may rejected application its absolute, be where “would regulation purpose render a inconsistent with the and lan guage authorizing Ante, statute.” at 703. That is assuredly only many possible it is true; one indications of (in meaning. ante, States, Cf. Burns v. at United 136-138 expressio inappropriate vocation of unius where it would results). arguably lead absurd and unconstitutional It is strong problem indication, and the here is that however, above, there are no others. As discussed limitation of rebut contrary purpose authorizing is not to the tal text or any statute, and neither the nor the Court Government offers thinking exceptions other that the listed reason are not exclusive.

HHH—IH—I impermissibly exceed the sum, DOL (1) they respects: allow em- least two at ployers argue has that a miner who pneumoconio- not disabled due disabled is nevertheless (2) specified evidence of miner has submitted and where a sis, they employer challenge allow the disease, a chronic dust related, is coal but whether the the disease whether the view of these we exists. That was disease expressed and I see Coal, S., in Pittston see 488 U. Pauley, As to claimant to reconsider.3 no reason divergence far at least as as statute is conclusive, is (I challenges constitutional do not address concerned. below.) passed upon not The em- statute, as these were Pauley’s pneumoconiosis ployer’s was defense was disability, and that defense was fore- not the cause of his regulations. I Thus, would reverse under the HEW closed Dayton presents a more difficult in No. 89-1714. Claimant showing a re- ventilation studies disease case. He submitted employer argue sembling pneumoconiosis. The wishes to regula- pneumoconiosis. IAs read the he does not have may challenge employer not the conclusion that tions, may (depend- Dayton pneumoconiosis-like disease, but has a here) provisions argued ing upon claim the effect of other employment. did not arise from coal that the disease present posi- clear on the record which of these Since it is not advocating, employer I remand in would No. 90- tions the Finally, Taylor agree I with the Court that claimant 114. Taylor presumption invoked the of dis- entitled to no relief. ability 727.203(a)(3). gas That not an test, via a blood invoking presumption approved under the method Taylor complain regulations. cannot has DOL HEW allowing him than HEW would have treated less well proper party to claim if the of Labor were Chevron Even I interpreting regulations, arguments find her these deference any accept them in contrary implausible that I would not event. so presumption regula- to be rebutted, under the since tions he not have would been entitled to the place. Accordingly, the first I would reverse in No. 90-113. foregoing respectfully For the reasons, I dissent.

Case Details

Case Name: Pauley v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc.

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Jun 24, 1991

Citation: 501 U.S. 680

Docket Number: 89-1714

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS