Mountaineer Coal Development v. Larry Dingess , 538 F. App'x 367 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2570
MOUNTAINEER COAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED; WEST
VIRGINIA CWP FUND,
Petitioners,
v.
LARRY A. DINGESS; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.
(12-0034-BLA)
Submitted: July 31, 2013 Decided: August 30, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark J. Grigoraci, ROBINSON & MCELWEE PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Petitioners. Otis R. Mann, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF
OTIS R. MANN, JR., Charleston, West Virginia; M. Patricia Smith,
Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen James, Deputy Solicitor, Gary K.
Stearman, Helen H. Cox, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mountaineer Coal Development Company (“Employer”)
petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s (“Board”)
decision and order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s
(“ALJ”) award of benefits to Larry A. Dingess under the Black
Lung Benefits Act (“Act”), 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 2007 &
Supp. 2013). We deny the petition for review.
We review the Board’s and the ALJ’s legal conclusions
de novo and “independent[ly] review . . . the record to
determine whether the ALJ’s findings of fact were supported by
substantial evidence.” Island Creek Coal Co. v. Compton, 211
F.3d 203, 207-08 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks
omitted). “‘Substantial evidence is more than a mere
scintilla’; it is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id.(quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)).
In conducting this review, we confine ourselves to the grounds
on which the Board based its decision. Daniels Co. v. Mitchell,
479 F.3d 321, 329 (4th Cir. 2007).
Subject to the substantial evidence requirement, we
defer to the ALJ’s credibility determinations and “evaluation of
the proper weight to accord conflicting medical opinions.”
Harman Mining Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs,
678 F.3d 305, 310 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks
2
omitted). The ALJ is not bound to accept any medical expert
opinion but “must evaluate the evidence, weigh it, and draw his
own conclusions,” giving consideration to “the qualifications of
the experts, the opinions’ reasoning, their reliance on
objectively determinable symptoms and established science, their
detail of analysis, and their freedom from irrelevant
distractions and prejudices.” Underwood v. Elkay Mining, Inc.,
105 F.3d 946, 949, 951 (4th Cir. 1997), superseded on other
grounds as stated in Elm Grove Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of
Workers’ Comp. Programs, 480 F.3d 278, 287 (4th Cir. 2007).
Because Dingess was employed in underground coal mines
for fifteen or more years, had at least one chest x-ray
interpreted as negative for complicated pneumoconiosis, and
demonstrated that he has a totally disabling pulmonary
impairment, he is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that he
is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis. * See 30 U.S.C.A.
§ 921(c)(4); 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(a) (2013). The burden then
shifted to Employer to affirmatively “rebut such presumption
only by establishing that (A) such miner does not . . . have
pneumoconiosis, or that (B) his respiratory or pulmonary
impairment did not arise out of, or in connection with,
*
This presumption was restored by the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, § 1556, 124 Stat.
119, 260 (2010).
3
employment in a coal mine.” 30 U.S.C.A. § 921(c)(4); see 20
C.F.R. § 718.305(a); Morrison v. Tenn. Consol. Coal Co., 644
F.3d 473, 479-80 (6th Cir. 2011). Upon review of the evidence
submitted in this case, we conclude that substantial evidence
supports the ALJ’s finding that Employer failed to affirmatively
rebut the presumption. See 20 C.F.R. § 718.201(a)(2); Harman
Mining Co., 678 F.3d at 311. Thus, the ALJ did not err in
awarding benefits under the Act.
Accordingly, we deny Employer’s petition for review.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
4