UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1850
ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
MANFORD HENLINE; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKER’S COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS; BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(05-127-BLA)
Submitted: May 8, 2008 Decided: July 9, 2008
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ashley M. Harman, Douglas A. Smoot, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC,
Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Sandra M. Fogel, CULLEY
& WISSORE, Carbondale, Illinois, for Respondent Manford Henline.
Jonathan L. Snare, Acting Solicitor of Labor, Patricia M. Nece,
Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Helen H. Cox, Office of the
Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for
Federal Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Island Creek Coal Company petitions for review of two orders
of the Benefits Review Board (the Board) affirming decisions of
administrative law judges (ALJs) determining that Manford Henline’s
Black Lung Benefits claim was timely filed and that Henline is
entitled to benefits. We deny the petition.
I.
Henline worked as an underground coal miner for at least 21
years between 1965 and 1993. Henline developed breathing problems
during the last few years of his work that worsened over time and
eventually forced him to retire.
On July 18, 2000, Henline filed a claim for benefits under the
Black Lung Benefits Act. See 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-44 (West 2007).
After Henline underwent testing and was examined by a Department of
Labor physician, the Department of Labor awarded him benefits. At
the request of Island Creek, the undisputed responsible operator
for any benefit award, the claim was then transferred to the Office
of Administrative Law Judges for formal hearing.
Following a hearing, ALJ Robert Lesnick issued a decision
awarding benefits. The ALJ found that Island Creek failed to rebut
the applicable presumption that Henline filed his claim within the
applicable three-year statute of limitations. See 20 C.F.R.
§ 725.308 (2007). In this regard, the ALJ concluded that there was
2
no evidence that any doctor had given Henline, more than three
years before he filed his claim, a “reasoned opinion” that he was
totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis. J.A. 525. The ALJ
alternatively found that the only evidence that a doctor had given
Henline any opinion to that effect--reasoned or unreasoned--more
than three years prior to the filing of his claim was testimony
from Henline himself. The ALJ discredited this testimony because
Henline had admitted that a stroke had left him with a poor memory,
and because his testimony was inconsistent and composed primarily
of a series of “yes” answers. Regarding the merits of Henline’s
claim, the ALJ credited the opinions of Henline’s expert, Dr.
Castle, and the Department of Labor’s doctor, Dr. Rasmussen, that
Henline was totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis and rejected the
contrary opinions of Island Creek’s three doctors.
On appeal, the Board affirmed the decision in part and vacated
and remanded in part. Although not reviewing the ALJ’s decision to
discredit Henline’s testimony on the timeliness issue, the Board
nevertheless affirmed the determination that Henline’s claim was
timely. The Board did so on the grounds that 20 C.F.R. § 725.308
requires that notice to the miner that he was totally disabled due
to pneumoconiosis must be in writing to trigger the three-year
statute-of-limitations clock and that Island Creek had not provided
evidence that Henline had received such notice. The Board also
affirmed the ALJ’s finding that Henline was totally disabled.
3
However, concluding that the ALJ did not explain why he found the
opinions of Drs. Castle and Rasmussen more persuasive than those of
Island Creek’s doctors, the Board remanded for reconsideration of
whether Henline had pneumoconiosis and whether his total disability
was due to pneumoconiosis.
The case was assigned to ALJ Daniel L. Leland on remand.
Finding Dr. Castle to be the most qualified based on his experience
and published research, and finding his opinion, which was
supported by Dr. Rasmussen, to be better documented and reasoned
than any of Island Creek’s doctors, the ALJ reinstated Henline’s
benefits award. The Board affirmed on appeal.
Island Creek then petitioned this court for review of the
Board’s decision, challenging, inter alia, the Board’s conclusion
that notice to a miner that he is disabled due to pneumoconiosis
must be in writing to trigger the statute-of-limitations clock. We
agreed with Island Creek, vacated the Board’s decision, and
remanded to the Board for reconsideration of the timeliness issue.
See Island Creek Coal Co. v. Henline, 456 F.3d 421, 425-27 (4th
Cir. 2006).
On remand, the Board, noting that whether a claimant’s hearing
testimony is sufficient to rebut the timeliness presumption is a
matter committed to the ALJ’s discretion, rejected a claim by
Island Creek that ALJ Lesnick erred in discrediting Henline’s
testimony on the statute-of-limitations issue. Thus, the Board
4
again affirmed Henline’s benefits award. Island Creek has now
petitioned this court again for review of the Board’s decision.
II.
Island Creek first argues that ALJ Lesnick and the Board
erroneously concluded that a “reasoned” opinion from a doctor was
required to trigger the three-year statute-of-limitations clock.
Whether the ALJ or the Board so concluded is immaterial, however,
since the ALJ discredited the only testimony that Henline received
any medical opinion--reasoned or unreasoned--that would have
triggered the limitations clock more than three years prior to the
claim, and the Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision to discredit that
evidence.
Island Creek next contends that ALJ Leland offered flawed
analysis regarding his rejection of its experts’ opinions. We
conclude, however, that the ALJ reasonably determined that none of
Island Creek’s doctors satisfactorily explained why Henline’s total
disability was not due to a coal-dust induced disease other than
coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. In employing this analysis, the ALJ
did not improperly “shift[] the burden of proof from the claimant
to the employer,” as Island Creek claims he did. Br. of
Petitioner, at 19. Rather, he merely concluded that their analysis
5
was incomplete, and therefore that their opinions were not well-
reasoned.*
Island Creek also maintains that ALJ Leland erred in crediting
the opinions of Drs. Cohen and Rasmussen. We disagree. The ALJ
reasonably concluded that these doctors, unlike their counterparts,
provided a persuasive and logically complete explanation for their
conclusions. While Island Creek’s physicians criticized several
aspects of Dr. Cohen’s analysis, the ALJ concluded that Dr. Cohen
provided credible and logical responses to the criticisms. The ALJ
also plausibly found that Cohen was “the most qualified with
respect to both experience and published research, in addition to
his board-certification and B-reader credentials.” J.A. 566. The
ALJ properly relied on all of these conclusions in deciding to
defer to the opinions of Drs. Cohen and Rasmussen over the opinions
offered by Island Creek’s physicians. See Island Creek Coal Co. v.
Compton, 211 F.3d 203, 211 (4th Cir. 2000) (“[I]t is the province
of the ALJ to evaluate the physicians’ opinions.”).
*
Island Creek also maintains that the ALJ’s criticism of Dr.
Renn’s assessment concerning a history of myocardial infarction and
the existence and effect of congestive heart failure was
unwarranted. However, there is no indication in the ALJ’s opinion
that his resolution of this issue had any bearing on his rejection
of Dr. Renn’s opinion.
6
III.
For all the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is
denied.
PETITION DENIED
7