Opinion

Consolidation Coal v. Brown

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Filed
Sep 26, 2000
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 28.1%

The opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

CHARLES R. BROWN; DIRECTOR,

No. 98-1923

OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION

PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Benefits Review Board.

(97-1016-BLA)

Submitted: August 31, 2000

Decided: September 26, 2000

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William S. Mattingly, JACKSON & KELLY, Morgantown, West

Virginia, for Petitioner. James Hook, Waynesburg, Pennslyvania;

Marvin Krislov, Deputy Solicitor for National Operations, Donald S.

Shire, Associate Solicitor, Patricia May Nece, Counsel for Appellate

Litigation, Barry H. Joyner, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED

STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for

Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Consolidation Coal Company (Employer) petitions for review of a

decision of the Benefits Review Board (Board) affirming the decision

of an administrative law judge (ALJ) to award black lung benefits to

Charles R. Brown. We placed this case in abeyance pending our deci-

sion in Island Creek Coal Co. v. Compton, 211 F.3d 203 (4th Cir.

2000). Compton having been decided, this case is ripe for review.

Following a lengthy procedural history, the ALJ ultimately found

that the preponderance of the readings of the most recent x-ray evi-

dence was sufficient to establish pneumoconiosis under 20 C.F.R.

§ 718.202(a)(1) (1999). In making this finding, the ALJ acknowl-

edged that all readings of a 1994 CT scan were negative, but con-

cluded that the x-ray evidence was more persuasive. The ALJ also

determined that Brown had established the existence of legal pneumo-

coniosis under 20 C.F.R. § 718.202(a)(4). In making this finding, the

ALJ credited the opinion of Dr. Jaworski over those of several other

medical experts. The ALJ stated that Dr. Jaworski's opinion that

Brown suffered from pneumoconiosis was more credible not only

because Dr. Jaworski was Brown's treating physician, but also

because his opinion was more consistent with the objective medical

evidence. That evidence included the x-ray evidence, abnormal blood

gas results, Brown's lengthy coal mine employment, and his limited

cigarette smoking history.

In Compton, we held that "all relevant evidence is to be considered

together rather than merely within discrete subsections of

§ 718.202(a)." Compton, 211 F.3d at 208. Here, the ALJ failed to

weigh all evidence relevant to the existence of pneumoconiosis. We

are particularly troubled by the ALJ's balancing the uniformly nega-

tive CT scan readings against the x-ray evidence and his failure to

give cogent reasons for discounting the CT scan evidence. We note

2

additionally that the ALJ credited Dr. Jaworski's opinion in part

because that opinion was more consistent with the x-ray evidence.

Because the ALJ did not adequately explain why he found the x-ray

evidence more persuasive than the CT scan evidence, crediting Dr.

Jaworski's opinion in part on the basis of the x-ray evidence is sus-

pect.

We vacate the Board's decision and remand to the Board for fur-

ther remand to the ALJ so that he may weigh, in accordance with

Compton, all the relevant evidence under § 718.202(a). The ALJ

should give his reasons for crediting or discrediting each piece of rel-

evant evidence, including the CT scan evidence, ventilatory and arte-

rial blood gas studies, x-ray evidence, and various physicians'

opinions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED

3

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.