this court examined evidence formerly relevant in the (b)(2) context under the standards of (b)(3) post-York
How later courts described this case
- this court examined evidence formerly relevant in the (b)(2) context under the standards of (b)(3) post-York
- interim presumption may not be rebutted under subsection (b)(2) on evidence miner not totally disabled
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Peabody Coal Company v. Greer, 62 F.3d 801 (1995)
Id. Wright is distinguishable because it involves a claimant (to whose benefit York wholly inured) attempting to overturn a finding of rebuttal, rather than an employer (whose burden the retroactive application of York made significantly greater) attempting to prove rebuttal.
The opinion
WELLFORD, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the decision to affirm the decision of the Board and of the Administrative Law Judge in this case. I fully agree with Judge Milburn’s rationale that rebuttal by respondents was accomplished under section 727.203(b)(3) in that Wright’s presumption of disability is overcome if “[t]he evidence establishes that the total disability ... did not arise in whole or in part out of coal mine employment”. I conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that pneumoconiosis is not a contributing cause of claimant’s disability. Ramey v. Kentland Elkhorn Coal Corp., 755 F.2d 485, 492 (6th Cir.1985); Wetherill v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, 812 F.2d 376, 380 (7th Cir.1987). Compare Roberts v. Benefits Review Board, 822 F.2d 636 (6th Cir.1987). There is, to put it another way, substantial evidence to support a finding that inability to continue coal mine employment was due entirely to Wright’s heart condition, not his pulmonary condition.
In view of this basis for affirmance, I see no reason to discuss the question of rebuttal, or failure to rebut, under section 727.-203(b)(2). I consider that discussion, under the circumstances, to be dicta. See Ramey, 755 F.2d at 488 n. 3. I do not find it necessary to decide whether or not there is substantial evidence to support a finding that petitioner is able to perform comparable work to his coal mine employment, or even certain types of coal mine work.
On this basis, I concur in the denial of benefits.