WEST VIRGINIA CWP FUND, as carrier for Olga Coal Company, Petitioner, v. Elsie L. STACY, surviving spouse of Howard W. Stacy; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Respondents.
No. 11-1020
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Argued: Oct. 25, 2011. Decided: Dec. 7, 2011. Amended Dec. 21, 2011.
671 F.3d 378
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Association of Bituminous Contractors, Incorporated; Old Republic Insurance Company, Amici Supporting Petitioner. United Mine Workers of America; Timothy Christopher MacDonnell, Esq., Amici Supporting Respondents.
In sum, we conclude that Hilfiger‘s interpretation of
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge WILKINSON wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge TRAXLER and Judge WYNN joined.
OPINION
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
This case involves a widow‘s claim for survivors’ benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act (“BLBA“),
I.
A.
The black lung benefits program was originally enacted in 1969 to provide benefits for miners totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mine employment. Pneumoconiosis is a chronic lung disease or impairment arising out of such employment. See
Congress has recalibrated the program‘s eligibility requirements for survivors several times since its inception. As initially enacted, the program required a survivor to prove entitlement by showing either that the miner‘s death was caused by pneumoconiosis or that the miner was totally disabled by pneumoconiosis at the time of his death. See
Congress significantly tightened the BLBA‘s eligibility requirements in 1981. For one thing, the 1981 amendments added limiting language to
In 2010, Congress once again recalibrated the BLBA‘s eligibility requirements by enacting Section 1556 of the PPACA. See
B.
Howard Stacy mined coal in West Virginia for Olga Coal Company from 1975 until 1986. Shortly after leaving the mines, Mr. Stacy filed a claim for federal black lung benefits. The Department of Labor granted the claim, finding that Mr. Stacy was totally disabled as a result of pneumoconiosis arising from his coal mine employment. Petitioner—as insurer for Olga Coal Company—paid BLBA benefits to Mr. Stacy for 20 years until his death in January 2007.
Mr. Stacy‘s widow, Elsie Stacy, filed a claim for survivors’ benefits on February 1, 2007. At the time she filed her claim, the applicable regulations required her to prove that pneumoconiosis caused, contributed to, or hastened her husband‘s death. See
On March 23, 2010, while Mrs. Stacy‘s case was on appeal, the PPACA was enacted. Shortly after, Mrs. Stacy filed a motion with the BRB requesting that her case be remanded for a determination of benefits under the newly amended BLBA because (1) her husband was receiving benefits at the time of his death pursuant to a final award; (2) she had filed her claim after January 1, 2005; and (3) her claim was still pending on March 23, 2010, when the PPACA was enacted. See
Petitioner opposed Mrs. Stacy‘s motion, arguing that PPACA Section 1556 is unconstitutional and that the PPACA‘s reinstatement of automatic survivors’ benefits does not apply to Mrs. Stacy‘s claim because the operative filing date for determining eligibility is the date the miner‘s claim was filed—not the date the survivor‘s claim was filed—and because the miner‘s claim here was filed before January 1, 2005, and was not pending on or after March 23, 2010.
On December 22, 2010, the BRB vacated the ALJ‘s decision and remanded Mrs. Stacy‘s claim for the entry of an award of benefits. Agreeing with the Director, the BRB held that the plain language of Section 1556(c) mandates the application of amended
II.
We begin with petitioner‘s contention that retroactive application of the automatic survivorship provision to claims filed after January 1, 2005 violates substantive due process because Congress “did not provide any legitimate purpose” for making the legislation retroactive and arbitrarily chose January 1, 2005 as the operative filing date. Petitioner‘s Br. at 25-26. Legislative acts “adjusting the burdens and benefits of economic life” are presumed to be constitutional, however, and “the burden is on one complaining of a due process violation to establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way.” Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 15, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). This is true even where that legislation is applied retroactively. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 729, 104 S.Ct. 2709, 81 L.Ed.2d 601 (1984). Because retroactive application of amended
Our analysis is guided by Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976), where the Supreme Court rejected an argument that the BLBA, as amended in 1972, violated due process by imposing retroactive liability for benefits on coal mine operators. The Usery Court held that “the imposition of liability for the effects of disabilities bred in the past is justified as a rational measure to spread the costs of the employees’ disabilities to those who have profited from the fruits of their labor—the operators and the coal consumers.” Id. at 18, 96 S.Ct. 2882.
A substantive due process violation requires that government have acted in an arbitrary manner. Id. at 15, 96 S.Ct. 2882. That is hardly the case here. Usery made plain that it is not “arbitrary and irrational” for Congress to compel operators who have benefited from a miner‘s labor in his productive years to care for that miner in his declining years and for his spouse or other eligible dependents after his death. Indeed, the wholly rational and legitimate purpose for applying amended
Relying on Usery, the Third Circuit recently upheld amended
Congress’ decision automatically to extend benefits to eligible survivors regardless of whether a miner died due to the effects of pneumoconiosis represents a legislative choice to compensate a miner‘s dependents for the suffering they endured due to the miner‘s pneumoconiosis or as a means to provide a miner with peace of mind that his dependents will continue to receive benefits after his death.
Id. at 258. The Third Circuit continued, “We have no reason to override Congress’ implicit determination that the choice was reasonable.” Id. Therefore, the court concluded, “based on the [Supreme Court‘s] rationale in [Usery], we cannot say that it is irrational or arbitrary for Congress to extend survivors’ benefit[s] to the dependents of miners who are receiving black lung benefits at the time of their death regardless of the cause of death.” Id.
Similarly, the Seventh Circuit relied on Usery in rejecting a due process challenge to the PPACA‘s retroactive revival of the 15-year presumption,
The absence of arbitrariness is underscored by the measured approach Congress adopted in the automatic survivorship amendments. Far from arbitrarily ignoring the potential financial burden that it placed on coal operators, Congress mitigated the retroactive impact of Section 1556 by limiting its application to “claims filed ... after January 1, 2005, that are pending on or after” March 23, 2010—the date the PPACA was enacted.
Although this limitation on
Petitioner also relies on Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498, 118 S.Ct. 2131, 141 L.Ed.2d 451 (1998). That case arose out of a series of agreements between the United Mine Workers of America and coal operators establishing multiemployer health care funds. Id. at 504-11, 118 S.Ct. 2131. Eastern was a signatory to every agreement executed between 1947 and 1964, but it ceased its coal mining operations in 1965. Id. at 516, 530, 118 S.Ct. 2131. Almost a decade after Eastern had left the industry, the remaining parties agreed that the multiemployer funds would provide lifetime health benefits for retirees and their dependents. Id. at 509, 530, 118 S.Ct. 2131. Congress subsequently passed the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 (the “Coal Act“), which required certain coal operators—including Eastern—to contribute to a new multiemployer plan providing the promised lifetime coverage. Id. at 514, 517, 118 S.Ct. 2131. The Supreme Court held the Coal Act unconstitutional as applied to Eastern—which had never agreed to provide lifetime benefits—but no single theory attracted a majority of the Court. Id. at 538, 118 S.Ct. 2131.
Petitioner‘s reliance on Eastern is misplaced for two reasons. First, only one Justice in that case concluded that Eastern‘s due process rights were violated. Id. at 539-50, 118 S.Ct. 2131 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part); see Ass‘n of Bituminous Contractors v. Apfel, 156 F.3d 1246, 1254 (D.C.Cir.1998) (“Justice Kennedy‘s concurrence in the judgment is of no help in appellant‘s efforts to cobble together a due process holding from Eastern Enterprises’ fragmented parts.“). Justice O‘Connor—writing for a plurality of four—resolved the case under the Takings Clause and explicitly declined to address the due process claim, 524 U.S. at 538, 118 S.Ct. 2131, and the four dissenting Justices concluded that neither the Takings Clause nor the Due Process Clause had been violated, id. at 553-54, 118 S.Ct. 2131.
Second, both Justice O‘Connor‘s plurality opinion and Justice Kennedy‘s concurrence in the judgment emphasized that Eastern‘s liabilities under the Coal Act—in addition to being extremely retroactive and expensive—were imposed to rectify a problem that Eastern had no part in creating. Id. at 537, 118 S.Ct. 2131 (plurality opinion) (noting that Eastern‘s burden was “unrelated to any commitment that [Eastern] made or to any injury [it] caused“); id. at 550, 118 S.Ct. 2131 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part) (“Eastern ... was not responsible for [retired miners‘] expectation of lifetime health benefits ... created by promises and agreements made long after Eastern left the coal business.“). In contrast, amended
Petitioner asserts that “[a]t minimum, Eastern stands for the proposition that retroactive legislation can fail to meet the requisite constitutional standards and may be struck down as invalid.” Petitioner‘s Reply Br. at 18. However, petitioner offers no criteria or limiting principle; it simply argues that Congress can go too far. In the absence of some workable and principled line—and in light of the substantial differences between the liability imposed on petitioner and that imposed in Eastern—we cannot conclude that retroactive application of
III.
Petitioner also argues that retroactive application of amended
In Eastern, five Justices rejected the theory that an obligation to pay undifferentiated, fungible money constitutes a taking. Justice Kennedy, in his opinion concurring in the judgment, disagreed with the plurality‘s conclusion that the Coal Act imposed an unconstitutional taking of property:
Our cases do not support the plurality‘s conclusion that the Coal Act takes property. The Coal Act imposes a staggering financial burden on the petitioner, Eastern Enterprises, but it regulates the former mine owner without regard to property. It does not operate upon or alter an identified property interest, and it is not applicable to or measured by a property interest. The Coal Act does not appropriate, transfer, or encumber an estate in land (e.g., a lien on a particular piece of property), a valuable interest in an intangible (e.g., intellectual property), or even a bank account or accrued interest. The law simply imposes an obligation to perform an act, the payment of benefits.
524 U.S. at 540, 118 S.Ct. 2131 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part). Likewise, the four dissenters concluded that the Takings Clause was not implicated because “[t]he ‘private property’ upon which the Clause traditionally has focused is a specific interest in physical or intellectual property,” and the case at hand involved “not an interest in physical or intellectual property, but an ordinary liability to pay money....” Id. at 554, 118 S.Ct. 2131 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (citations omitted).
In applying this splintered decision to takings challenges, this court has indicated that the conclusion reached by the majority of the Justices in Eastern—that an obligation to pay money cannot constitute a taking—is more authoritative than the plurality‘s conclusion. As we explained in Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp., 181 F.3d 597, 606 (4th Cir.1999), “to the extent Eastern Enterprises worked any change with respect to takings jurisprudence,” it is that liabilities like that imposed by the Coal Act “must be considered as a question of substantive due process rather than as a takings question because no identifiable property interest was infringed by the legislation.”
Other circuits are in accord, and some have held that they are bound by the five Justices’ conclusion that a monetary obligation does not implicate the Takings Clause. See, e.g., Swisher Int‘l, Inc. v. Schafer, 550 F.3d 1046, 1054 (11th Cir. 2008) (“[T]akings analysis is not [appropriate] for the constitutional evaluation of an obligation imposed by Congress merely to pay money.“); Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States, 271 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir.2001) (en banc) (“Thus five justices ... in Eastern Enterprises agreed that regulatory actions requiring the payment of money are not takings. We agree with the prevailing view that we are obligated to follow the views of that majority.“); Unity Real Estate Co. v. Hudson, 178 F.3d 649, 659 (3d Cir.1999) (“[W]e are bound to follow the five-four vote against the takings claim in Eastern.“); Parella v. Ret. Bd. of the R.I. Employees’ Ret. Sys., 173 F.3d 46, 58 (1st Cir.1999) (upholding a statute against a Takings Clause challenge because “a majority of justices found that the Takings Clause did not apply under the facts of Eastern Enterprises, because they concluded that a Takings Clause issue can arise only after a plaintiff‘s property right has been independently established.“).
Thus, in light of Eastern, we hold that the mere imposition of an obligation to pay money does not give rise to a claim under the Takings Clause. If the Takings Clause applied to obligations of this sort, then it would seemingly apply to taxes and to “all statutes and rules that ‘routinely creat[e] burdens for some that directly benefit others[.]‘” 524 U.S. at 556, 118 S.Ct. 2131 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (citation omitted). Given the views of a majority of Justices in Eastern, we decline to go down that road. Because amended
Moreover, if we are somehow mistaken and Justice O‘Connor‘s plurality opinion reflected the holding of Eastern, we would be compelled to reject petitioner‘s takings claim. The Eastern plurality explicitly limited its conclusion to “the specific circumstances of [that] case,” id. at 537, 118 S.Ct. 2131, and those circumstances are simply not present here. In determining that the Coal Act‘s application to Eastern effected an unconstitutional taking, the plurality emphasized that the Act “implicates fundamental principles of fairness underlying the Takings Clause” because it “singles out [Eastern] to bear a burden ... unrelated to any commitment that [it] made or to any injury [it] caused....” Id. Here, in contrast, the liability imposed by amended
In the course of its takings argument, petitioner complains that it “could not have foreseen reinstatement of [the automatic survivorship provision] through an amendment hidden within the universal health-care bill.” Petitioner‘s Reply Br. at 21. This argument misfires on two grounds. First, given that the black lung benefits scheme has been amended frequently over the years, and that legislation to reinstate automatic survivors’ benefits has been introduced repeatedly, see Petitioner‘s Br. at 20, petitioner had ample notice of its potential liability for automatic survivors’ benefits. As the Supreme Court has repeated, “‘Those who do business in the regulated field cannot object if the legislative scheme is buttressed by subsequent amendments to achieve the legislative end.‘” Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 475 U.S. 211, 227, 106 S.Ct. 1018, 89 L.Ed.2d 166 (1986) (quoting FHA v. The Darlington, Inc., 358 U.S. 84, 91, 79 S.Ct. 141, 3 L.Ed.2d 132 (1958)).
Second, and more fundamentally, petitioner‘s argument that the BLBA amendments only passed due to their “inclusion in approximately 2,700 pages of health-care legislation,” Petitioner‘s Reply Br. at 27-28, threatens the separation of powers by inviting courts to scrutinize the process by which a coordinate branch of government goes about its business. Likewise, it invites every loser in a legislative fight to contest not only the constitutionality of Congress‘s final product, but the way that
IV.
We next consider petitioner‘s assertion that the PPACA‘s reinstatement of automatic survivors’ benefits does not apply to Mrs. Stacy‘s claim because the operative filing date for determining eligibility is the date the miner‘s claim was filed—not the date the survivor‘s claim was filed. This court exercises de novo review over questions of law, including statutory interpretation. See Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cox, 602 F.3d 276, 282 (4th Cir.2010). The Director, as the administrator of the BLBA, is entitled to deference in his reasonable interpretation of the Act‘s ambiguous provisions. See Betty B. Coal Co. v. Dir., OWCP, 194 F.3d 491, 498 (4th Cir.1999). When—as here—the Director‘s position is being advanced via litigation, it is “entitled to respect” but only to the extent that [it has] the “power to persuade[.]” Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 587, 120 S.Ct. 1655, 146 L.Ed.2d 621 (2000) (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944)).
Our analysis begins with the text of PPACA Section 1556, which contains three subsections. Section 1556(a) restores the 15-year presumption, which had been eliminated by the 1981 amendments. See
Construing these provisions, the Director concluded that the plain language of Section 1556(c) mandates its application to all claims filed after January 1, 2005 that are pending on or after March 23, 2010. Petitioner disagrees, arguing that because amended
We find the Director‘s interpretation persuasive, as the definition of “claim” is not qualified by Section 1556(c). Instead, the plain language of that section requires that amended
Although amended
Finally, the Director‘s interpretation, unlike petitioner‘s proposed reading, maintains consistency within Section 1556. The 15-year presumption, as reinstated by Section 1556(a), explicitly applies to both miners’ and survivors’ claims. See
Because it is supported by the plain language of Section 1556(c), which does not qualify the definition of “claim,” and because it maintains consistency within Section 1556, the Director‘s position—that amended
V.
Finally, we consider petitioner‘s argument that
Following the 1981 BLBA amendments, the automatic survivorship provision was no longer in effect, and survivors could generally only obtain benefits by proving that pneumoconiosis caused a miner‘s death. Congress accomplished this result by amending various provisions of the BLBA—including
Section 932(c)—a neighboring provision to
(a) Schedules
Subject to the provisions of subsection (b) of this section, benefit payments shall be made by the Secretary under this part as follows:
...
(2) In the case of death of a miner due to pneumoconiosis or, except with respect to a claim filed under part C of this subchapter on or after the effective date of the Black Lung Benefits Amendments of 1981, of a miner receiving benefits under this part, benefits shall be paid to his widow (if any) at the rate the deceased miner would receive such benefits if he were totally disabled.
Like
The Secretary shall, in accordance with the provisions of this part, and the regulations promulgated by him under this part, make payments of benefits in respect of total disability of any miner due to pneumoconiosis, and in respect of death of any miner whose death was due to pneumoconiosis or, except with respect to a claim filed under part C of this subchapter on or after the effective date of the Black Lung Benefits Amendments of 1981, who at the time of his death was totally disabled by pneumoconiosis.
Finally,
Our analysis of the apparent conflict between
We find the Third Circuit‘s reasoning persuasive. Here, there is no dispute over the meaning of amended
VI.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Benefits Review Board is
AFFIRMED.