UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1114
PARAMONT COAL COMPANY OF VIRGINIA, LCC,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JEFFREY J. COLEMAN,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(12-0104 BLA)
Submitted: January 14, 2014 Decided: April 4, 2014
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy W. Gresham, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia,
for Petitioner. Joseph E. Wolfe, Ryan C. Gilligan, WOLFE,
WILLIAMS, RUTHERFORD & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for
Respondent Jeffrey J. Coleman.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Paramont Coal Company (“Paramont”) petitions for review of
the order of the Benefits Review Board (“Board”) affirming the
Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) award of benefits to Jeffrey
Coleman (“Coleman”), a former coal mine employee, under the
Black Lung Benefits Act of 1977 (the “Act”), 30 U.S.C. §§ 901 et
seq. Paramont argues that the ALJ’s decision was contrary to
law and unsupported by substantial evidence. For the reasons
that follow, we deny Paramont’s petition for review and affirm
the award of benefits to Coleman.
I.
Coleman has spent approximately 33.34 years employed in
coal mining. 1 On July 9, 2009, Coleman filed a claim for
benefits under the Act, which grants benefits to former miners
afflicted with pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung
disease. 2 See 20 C.F.R. § 718.201. Benefits under the Act are
awardable to miners who are totally disabled within the meaning
1
At the time he filed his application for benefits, Coleman
was still working for Paramont. Unchallenged on appeal, the
ALJ’s finding regarding Coleman’s length of coal mine employment
was affirmed by the Board.
2
Coleman had filed a previous claim for benefits, which was
denied on February 12, 1999. He did not further pursue that
claim.
2
of the Act due to pneumoconiosis, or to the survivors of miners
who were totally disabled at the time of their deaths (for
claims filed prior to January 1, 1982), or to the survivors of
miners whose deaths were caused by pneumoconiosis. See 30
U.S.C. §§ 901 et seq. The District Director of the Division of
Coal Mine Workers’ Compensation of the Office of Workers’
Compensation Programs (“District Director”) awarded benefits to
Coleman on August 3, 2010. Upon Paramont’s request for a
hearing, the file was transferred to an ALJ for a formal hearing
to determine whether Coleman was eligible for benefits.
A hearing was held on June 11, 2011, in Abingdon, Virginia.
In order to prove eligibility under the Act, Coleman had to show
that he was totally disabled because of pneumoconiosis caused by
his coal-mining employment. See 30 U.S.C. §§ 901, 921; 20
C.F.R. §§ 718.202–204, 725.202. Because more than one year had
passed since the denial of his first claim, Coleman also had to
establish that “one of the applicable conditions of entitlement
. . . ha[d] changed since the date upon which the order denying
the prior claim became final.” 20 C.F.R. § 725.309(c). The Act
provides an irrebuttable statutory presumption of total
disability resulting from pneumoconiosis where the coal miner
suffers from “a chronic dust disease of the lung.” 30 U.S.C. §
921(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 718.304.
3
After reviewing the medical evidence at the hearing, the
ALJ determined that complicated pneumoconiosis arising out of
Coleman’s coal mine employment was established pursuant to 20
C.F.R. §§ 718.304 and 718.203(b), and found that he was entitled
to invocation of the irrebuttable statutory presumption of
totally disabling pneumoconiosis under § 411(c)(3) of the Act,
30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(3). The ALJ therefore determined that
Coleman was entitled to benefits under the Act.
Paramont appealed to the Board, which affirmed the ALJ’s
decision and order awarding benefits. Paramont timely appealed
the Board’s decision, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 33
U.S.C. § 921(c), as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. § 932(a).
II.
In reviewing a claim for benefits under the Act, our review
of the Board’s order is “limited.” Harman Mining Co. v. Dir.,
OWCP, 678 F.3d 305, 310 (4th Cir. 2012). We review the decision
“to assess whether substantial evidence supports the factual
findings of the ALJ and whether the legal conclusions of the
[Board] and ALJ are rational and consistent with applicable
law.” Id. Because the ALJ is the trier of fact, we “defer to
the ALJ’s evaluation of the proper weight to accord conflicting
medical opinions.” Id. Thus, as long as substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s findings, we “must sustain the ALJ’s
4
decision, even if [we] disagree with it.” Id. We review
questions of law de novo. Id.
III.
On appeal, although Paramont purports to raise several
issues, it basically contends that the ALJ erred in finding the
existence of complicated pneumoconiosis established pursuant to
20 C.F.R. § 718.304 and, therefore, erred in finding that
Coleman was entitled to the irrebuttable statutory presumption
of totally disabling pneumoconiosis. Paramont specifically
contends that the ALJ’s analysis is legally flawed, and also
raises a broad challenge to the ALJ’s weighing of the
conflicting evidence.
Section 411(c)(3) of the Act, as implemented by 20 C.F.R.
§ 718.304, provides an irrebuttable presumption of total
disability due to pneumoconiosis if the miner suffers from
a chronic dust disease of the lung which (A)
when diagnosed by chest [x-ray], yields one
or more large opacities (greater than one
centimeter in diameter) . . ., (B) when
diagnosed by biopsy or autopsy, yields
massive lesions in the lung, or (C) when
diagnosis is made by other means, would be a
condition which could reasonably be expected
to yield results described in clause (A) or
(B) if diagnosis had been made in the manner
prescribed in clause (A) or (B).
30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. § 718.304. The introduction of
legally sufficient evidence of complicated pneumoconiosis does
5
not, however, automatically qualify a claimant for the
irrebuttable presumption. Rather, the evidence must establish
that the claimant has a “chronic dust disease of the lung,”
commonly known as complicated pneumoconiosis. To make such a
determination, the ALJ must examine all the evidence on the
issue, i.e., evidence of simple and complicated pneumoconiosis,
as well as evidence that pneumoconiosis is not present, resolve
any conflict in the evidence, and make findings of fact. See E.
Assoc. Coal Corp. v. Dir., OWCP, 220 F.3d 250, 256–59 (4th Cir.
2000).
Our review of the record discloses that the ALJ’s decision
is in accordance with the law and supported by substantial
evidence. Pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 718.304(a), the ALJ found
that the newly submitted x-ray of September 16, 2009 was read by
Dr. Michael S. Alexander (“Dr. Alexander”) and Dr. Kathleen A.
DePonte (“Dr. DePonte”), dually-qualified Board-certified
radiologists and B readers, as positive for both simple
pneumoconiosis and complicated pneumoconiosis, Category A. The
ALJ noted that the x-ray was read as negative for pneumoconiosis
by Dr. Jerome F. Wiot (“Dr. Wiot”), an equally-qualified
radiologist. However, the ALJ found that while Dr. William W.
Scott (“Dr. Scott”), an equally-qualified radiologist, read the
same x-ray as negative for both simple pneumoconiosis and
6
complicated pneumoconiosis, he advised that a follow-up review
of the enlarging mass in the upper-right lung be conducted.
Regarding another submitted x-ray of December 7, 2009, the
ALJ found that Dr. DePonte read the x-ray as positive for both
simple pneumoconiosis and complicated pneumoconiosis, Category
A, while Dr. Wiot read the x-ray as negative. The ALJ further
concluded that Drs. Alexander and DePonte attributed the
complicated pneumoconiosis to coal mine employment and that
there was no credible medical evidence of record indicating that
“the large masses in [Coleman’s] lungs are due to a process
other than pneumoconiosis.” (J.A. 273); see also 20 C.F.R.
§ 718.304(a). Consequently, the ALJ found that the existence of
complicated pneumoconiosis was established pursuant to § 718.304
overall.
The ALJ also weighed the new evidence with the evidence
from Coleman’s prior 1999 claim, including x-rays and a medical
opinion. After crediting the more recent evidence, the ALJ
determined that the existence of complicated pneumoconiosis was
established pursuant to § 718.304 overall. The ALJ concluded,
therefore, that Coleman was entitled to invocation of the
§ 411(c)(3) irrebuttable presumption of totally disabling
pneumoconiosis.
Paramont contends that the ALJ erred in finding that the x-
ray evidence established complicated pneumoconiosis on the basis
7
of the Category A classifications of Dr. Alexander and Dr.
DePonte, without considering the fact that other x-ray readings
did not identify Category A opacities. Additionally, Paramont
contends that the ALJ erred in rejecting evidence that showed
that the large mass seen on the x-ray evidence was not due to
complicated pneumoconiosis, but was due to another disease
process.
Contrary to Paramont’s arguments, however, the ALJ properly
found complicated pneumoconiosis pursuant to § 718.304(a), based
on the x-ray readings of Drs. Alexander and DePonte, who
classified the opacities seen as Category A. The ALJ
permissibly found that the other x-ray readings, 3 which either
did not diagnose a large opacity, identify the size of the
opacities seen, or address the existence of the large opacity
observed by Drs. Alexander and DePonte, were insufficient to
overcome the Category A classifications of Drs. Alexander and
DePonte. See E. Assoc. Coal Corp., 220 F.3d at 256; Piney
Mountain Coal Co. v. Mays, 176 F.3d 753, 756 (4th Cir. 1999).
3
These readings consisted of the readings of the September
16, 2009 and December 7, 2009 x-rays and the readings of other
x-rays that were deemed to be of less than optimal quality; that
identified nodules but did not refer to their size or cause;
that identified a large mass that might be Category A; and that
were classified for pneumoconiosis as either 0/1 or 1/1.
8
Moreover, the ALJ properly found that the evidence
established that the large masses seen on the x-rays were due to
complicated pneumoconiosis and not another disease process.
Specifically, the ALJ permissibly rejected the opinions of Dr.
James R. Castle (“Dr. Castle”) and Dr. Gregory J. Fino (“Dr.
Fino”), who suggested a possible link between the large opacity
seen on x-ray and sarcoidosis or healed granulomatous disease,
as equivocal. 4 The ALJ, therefore, found that the opinions of
Drs. Castle and Fino were insufficient to establish that the
large opacities were not due to coal mine employment and, as to
the “possible” cause of the large opacity, were not credible as
they were unsupported by any evidence in the record. (J.A.
274.) In contrast, the ALJ properly credited the findings of
Drs. Alexander and DePonte, attributing Coleman’s Category A
opacity to coal mine employment, as the ALJ found that their
findings were supported by the evidence in the record. The ALJ
thus properly found that Coleman had established the existence
of complicated pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mine
4
Dr. Castle opined that laboratory testing conducted on
Coleman, while negative for histoplasmosis, “suggested” possible
sarcoidosis and the few non-specific nodules seen on Coleman’s
x-rays were “most likely” due to an infectious disease that had
healed. (J.A. 274.) Dr. Fino opined that Coleman’s x-rays did
not show complicated pneumoconiosis and that the Category A
opacities seen by other physicians “could” be due to
sarcoidosis. (J.A. 274.)
9
employment pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 718.304, and accordingly, was
entitled to invocation of the § 411(c)(3) irrebuttable
presumption of totally disabling pneumoconiosis.
Ultimately, we conclude that the record compels us to
uphold the award of black lung benefits in this case. Although
Paramont repeatedly contends that the ALJ’s reliance on the
opinions of Drs. Alexander and DePonte, over those of Drs.
Castle and Fino, constitutes reversible error, the record here
contains conflicting medical opinions as to whether Coleman
suffers from complicated pneumoconiosis. The ALJ’s role, as
fact-finder, was to resolve such conflicts. See Harman, 678
F.3d at 316. This is precisely what the ALJ did, as she
conscientiously—and repeatedly—weighed the expert opinions and
resolved the conflicts in favor of Coleman. Even if we might
have weighed the evidence at issue differently than the ALJ, on
review, we defer to her evaluation of the appropriate weight to
accord these conflicting medical opinions.
IV.
Accordingly, we deny Paramont’s petition for review and
affirm the decision of the Board to uphold the ALJ’s decision
and order awarding benefits. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
10
in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
11