RECENT SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS
Black Lung Benefits Act
Office of Administrative Law Judges
United States Department of Labor
MONTHLY DIGEST # 124
February 1996 - April 1996
A. Circuit courts of appeals
In Scott v. Mason Coal Co. , ___ F.3d ___, Case No. 93-2067 (4th Cir. 1995), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an administrative law judge may not reject physical limitations noted in a doctor s report as being nothing more than mere notations of the patient s descriptions unless there is explicit evidence contained in the report that the limitations are not the physician s opinion. The Third and the Eleventh Circuits reached the same conclusion in Kowalchick v. Director, OWCP , 893 F.2d 615, 623 (3d Cir. 1990) and Jordan v. Benefits Review Board , 876 F.2d 1455, 1460 (11th Cir. 1989).
[ VI - 22, limitations noted in physician's report ]
In Plesh v. Director, OWCP , 71 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 1995), the court reaffirmed that § 727.203(b)(3) rebuttal is accomplished where pneumoconiosis is "ruled out" as a contributing factor to the miner's total disability and an equivocal physician's opinion is insufficient to sustain this burden.
Moreover, the Third Circuit held that a letter, wherein the miner stated, "I am appealing this as of now," constituted a formal hearing request, thus triggering the district director's duty to refer all contested issues to the Office of Administrative Law Judges for resolution. This is so, according to the court, even where the hearing request is "premature." Specifically, in Plesh , Claimant submitted the hearing request after issuance of an order to show cause but prior to entry of the district director's proposed decision and order. The court found that the letter preserved Claimant's right to a hearing such that it was unnecessary that he file a second request upon issuance of the district director's final determination.
[ III - 8, formal hearing request ]
B. Benefits Review Board
In Church v. Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp. , 20 B.L.R. 1- __, BRB No. 95-0516 BLA (Jan. 24, 1996), the Board held that it was proper to accord greater weight to a medical report "on the grounds that the doctor specifically identified the studies upon which he relied and the conclusion he reached was consistent with the underlying objective evidence of record." oreover, the administrative law judge correctly assigned greater weight to a treating physician's opinion whose diagnosis was based upon "'extensive medical information gathered over a period of many years.'" Further, the Board rejected Employer's argument that a judge is compelled to discredit a physician's opinion that the miner suffered from pneumoconiosis where the physician based his findings, in part, upon x-ray evidence which the judge ultimately concluded did not support a finding of the disease. In so holding, the Board noted that the physician also based his opinion upon observations gathered during the time he physically examined Claimant.
[ IV - 21, weighing medical opinion evidence ]