Connie Stiltner (widow of John H. Stiltner) v. K&V Coal Company, Incorporated (Board decision, March 20, 2025)

BRB interlocutory order. The Benefits Review Board vacated the administrative law judge's denial of survivor benefits in part and remanded the claim for further findings. Entitlement remains unresolved. A final Board decision ordinarily becomes final 60 days after issuance absent timely judicial review or reconsideration under 20 C.F.R. § 802.406; a party may request Board reconsideration within 30 days under § 802.407.

Plain-English summary

Connie Stiltner sought survivor benefits after her husband John H. Stiltner died. The judge denied the claim after finding no total respiratory disability or complicated pneumoconiosis. The Board upheld the finding that the evidence did not show complicated pneumoconiosis and agreed that the fifteen-year presumption was unavailable because no party claimed more than ten years of mine work. But the judge had treated the claim like a miner's claim and had not decided whether pneumoconiosis contributed to his death under the ordinary survivor rules. The Board also rejected the judge's finding that the parties had agreed to 7.9 years of mine work. It sent the case back for findings on work history, pneumoconiosis, and cause of death.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Survivor entitlement under 20 C.F.R. §§ 718.202, 718.203, and 718.205.
• Outcome: Survivor benefits denial affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
• Key point: Failure to qualify for a presumption does not end a survivor's claim without findings on pneumoconiosis and death causation.

Full text (DOL BRB public release)

U.S. Department of Labor Benefits Review Board 200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001

BRB No. 24-0069 BLA

CONNIE STILTNER
)
(Widow of JOHN H. STILTNER)
)
)
Claimant-Petitioner
)
)
v. )
)
NOT-PUBLISHED
K&V COAL COMPANY,
)
INCORPORATED
)
) DATE ISSUED: 03/20/2025
Employer-Respondent
)
)
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’
)
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
)
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
)
)
Party-in-Interest
)
DECISION and ORDER
Appeal of the Decision and Order Denying Benefits of Heather Leslie, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of Labor.

Connie Stiltner, New Castle, Virginia.

Michael A. Pusateri (Greenberg Traurig LLP), Washington, D.C., for Employer.

Before: BOGGS, BUZZARD, and JONES, Administrative Appeals Judges.
Claimant1 appeals, without the assistance of counsel,2 Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Heather C. Leslie’s Decision and Order Denying Benefits (2020-BLA-06106) rendered on a survivor’s claim3 filed February 15, 2019, pursuant to the Black Lung Benefits Act, as amended, 30 U.S.C. §§901-944 (2018) (Act).4

The ALJ found the Miner had 7.9 years of coal mine employment and did not have a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment. 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2). Therefore, she found Claimant could not invoke the presumption of death due to pneumoconiosis at Section 411(c)(4) of the Act,5 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(4) (2018). She further found the Miner did not have complicated pneumoconiosis and thus Claimant could not invoke the irrebuttable presumption of death due to pneumoconiosis at Section 411(c)(3) of the Act. 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(3); 20 C.F.R. §718.304. Based on the foregoing analysis, the ALJ denied survivor’s benefits.

1
Claimant is the widow of the Miner, who died on November 17, 2018. Director’s Exhibit 8.
2
On Claimant’s behalf, Vickie Combs, a benefits counselor with Stone Mountain Health Services of Vansant, Virginia, requested the Benefits Review Board review the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) decision, but Ms. Combs is not representing Claimant on appeal. See Shelton v. Claude V. Keen Trucking Co., 19 BLR 1-88 (1995) (Order).
3
Section 422(l) of the Act provides that the survivor of a miner who was determined to be eligible to receive benefits at the time of his death is automatically entitled to survivor’s benefits without having to establish the miner’s death was due to pneumoconiosis. 30 U.S.C. §932(l) (2018). Claimant is not entitled to this presumption, as the Miner never established entitlement to benefits.
4
This case involves a request for modification of a district director’s denial of benefits. Director’s Exhibit 37. In cases involving a request for modification of a district director’s decision, the ALJ proceeds de novo and “the modification finding is subsumed in the [ALJ’s] findings on the issues of entitlement.” Kott v. Director, OWCP, 17 BLR 1- 9, 1-13 (1992); Motichak v. BethEnergy Mines, Inc., 17 BLR 1-14, 1-19 (1992).
5
Under Section 411(c)(4) of the Act, Claimant is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the Miner’s death was due to pneumoconiosis if he had at least fifteen years of underground or substantially similar surface coal mine employment and a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment at the time of his death. 30 U.S.C.
§921(c)(4) (2018); 20 C.F.R. §718.305(b).

2
On appeal, Claimant generally challenges the denial of benefits. Employer responds in support of the denial. The Acting Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, did not file a response.

In an appeal a claimant files without the assistance of counsel, the Board considers whether the Decision and Order below is supported by substantial evidence. See McFall v. Jewell Ridge Coal Corp., 12 BLR 1-176 (1989). We must affirm the Decision and Order if it is rational, supported by substantial evidence, and in accordance with applicable law.6 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(3), as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. §932(a); O’Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Assocs., Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965).

At the outset, we note the ALJ mistakenly treated this claim as a miner’s claim when it is a survivor’s claim, and thus she did not conduct the proper inquiry. In a survivor’s claim, a claimant must establish the miner had pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mine employment and his death was due to pneumoconiosis. See 20 C.F.R. §§718.202(a), 718.203, 718.205(a); Trumbo v. Reading Anthracite Co., 17 BLR 1-85, 1-87-88 (1993). A claimant may establish death causation by invoking the statutory presumptions at Section 411(c)(3) or Section 411(c)(4). When no presumption is invoked, the claimant bears the burden of establishing that pneumoconiosis caused or was a substantially contributing cause or factor leading to the miner’s death. 20 C.F.R. §718.205(b)(1), (2).

The ALJ denied benefits after concluding that Claimant did not establish total disability or invoke the Section 411(c)(3) or (4) presumptions. The ALJ failed, however, to consider if Claimant could establish that the Miner had pneumoconiosis7 arising out of coal mine employment and that his death was due to pneumoconiosis under 20 C.F.R. Part

718. See 20 C.F.R. §§718.202(a), 718.203, 718.205(a). As the ALJ did not determine
     whether Claimant established the requisite elements of entitlement in a survivor’s claim, we vacate her denial of benefits. See Trumbo, 17 BLR at 1-87-88.

     Because it is relevant to determining survivor entitlement, we address the ALJ’s
     finding that Claimant did not invoke the Section 411(c)(3) presumption and her findings on the length of coal mine employment as it pertains to whether Claimant can invoke the Section 411(c)(4) presumption.

             Section 411(c)(3) Presumption – Complicated Pneumoconiosis
     

     6
     The Board will apply the law of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
     Circuit, as the Miner performed his last coal mine employment in Virginia. See Shupe v. Director, OWCP, 12 BLR 1-200, 1-202 (1989) (en banc); Director’s Exhibit 2.

                                           3
     Section 411(c)(3) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(3), provides an irrebuttable
     

     presumption that a miner’s death was due to pneumoconiosis if he suffered from a chronic dust disease of the lung which: (a) when diagnosed by x-ray, yields one or more opacities greater than one centimeter in diameter that would be classified as Category A, B, or C; (b) when diagnosed by biopsy or autopsy, yields massive lesions in the lung; or (c) when diagnosed by other means, would be a condition that could reasonably be expected to yield a result equivalent to (a) or (b). See 20 C.F.R. §718.304. In determining whether a claimant has invoked the irrebuttable presumption, the ALJ must weigh all evidence relevant to the presence or absence of complicated pneumoconiosis. See Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cox, 602 F.3d 276, 283 (4th Cir. 2010); E. Assoc. Coal Corp. v. Director, OWCP [Scarbro], 220 F.3d 250, 255-56 (4th Cir. 2000); Melnick v. Consolidation Coal Co., 16 BLR 1-31, 1-33 (1991) (en banc).

     The ALJ found the x-rays, medical opinions, treatment records, and computed
     tomography (CT) scans do not support a finding of complicated pneumoconiosis. Decision and Order at 7. Substantial evidence supports her findings.

     Drs. Forehand, Adcock, Miller, and Simone each read a June 5, 2018 chest x-ray,
     

     and Drs. DePonte and Adcock each read a May 4, 2016 chest x-ray. Director’s Exhibits 9 at 26; 10; 37 at 2, 4; Employer’s Exhibit 1. None of the physicians identified large opacities consistent with complicated pneumoconiosis.7 Thus we affirm the ALJ’s finding that the x-rays do not support finding complicated pneumoconiosis. 20 C.F.R. §718.304(a); Decision and Order at 7.

     The record also contains physicians’ interpretations of three CT scans contained in
     the Miner’s treatment records. Dr. Adcock interpreted CT scans dated August 16, 2015,

     7
     When considering the evidence regarding the presence of complicated
     pneumoconiosis, the ALJ correctly noted none of the medical experts of record opined the Miner had complicated pneumoconiosis. Decision and Order at 7. Nevertheless, when summarizing the medical opinions on total disability, the ALJ incorrectly stated “Dr. Forehand diagnosed Miner with complicated pneumoconiosis with progressive massive fibrosis.” Id. at 11. Although Dr. Forehand did identify a pulmonary mass in the Miner’s left mid-lung zone, he did not characterize this mass as a large opacity consistent with pneumoconiosis or diagnose the Miner with complicated pneumoconiosis with progressive massive fibrosis. Director’s Exhibit 9 at 23-24, 26. Therefore, the context of the ALJ’s analysis makes clear that her misstatement regarding Dr. Forehand’s diagnoses was a “scrivener’s error.” See Larioni v. Director, OWCP, 6 BLR 1-1276, 1-1278 (1984). We thus affirm the ALJ’s finding the medical opinions do not support complicated pneumoconiosis. 20 C.F.R. §718.304(c); Decision and Order at 7.

                                           4
     

     October 20, 2015, and July 22, 2016, and noted no signs of coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. Director’s Exhibit 10 at 4-9; Employer’s Exhibit 4. Dr. Patel read the October 20, 2015, and July 22, 2016 CT scans and noted “reticular nodular densities throughout both lungs, probably due to chronic changes in the lungs from systemic cause [sic] like pneumoconiosis.” Director’s Exhibits 37 at 5; 11 at 28-29. He neither described the size of the densities nor mention complicated pneumoconiosis. Id. Thus we affirm the ALJ’s determination that the CT scans do not support finding complicated pneumoconiosis. 20 C.F.R. §718.304(c); Decision and Order at 7.

     The ALJ also considered records from the Miner’s treatment by Drs. Keely and
     Hansbarger which include the results of several biopsies of tissue removed from his lung. Director’s Exhibit 11. None of the records include a diagnosis of pneumoconiosis.8 Id. Similarly, the Miner’s death certificate lists myocardial infarction, metastatic lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as causes of death but does not mention pneumoconiosis. Director’s Exhibit 8 at 2. Thus we affirm the ALJ’s conclusion that the treatment records do not support finding complicated pneumoconiosis. 20 C.F.R.
     §718.304(c); Decision and Order at 7.

     As it is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the ALJ’s finding Claimant
     did not invoke the Section 411(c)(3) presumption.

        Section 411(c)(4) Presumption – Length of Coal Mine Employment
     

     To invoke the Section 411(c)(4) presumption, Claimant must establish the Miner
     worked at least fifteen years in underground coal mines or “substantially similar” surface coal mine employment. 20 C.F.R. §718.305(b)(1)(i). Claimant bears the burden to establish the number of years the Miner worked in coal mine employment. See Kephart v. Director, OWCP, 8 BLR 1-185, 1-186 (1985); Hunt v. Director, OWCP, 7 BLR 1-709, 1- 710-11 (1985). The dates and length of employment may be established by any credible evidence, and the Board will uphold an ALJ’s determination if it is based on a reasonable method of calculation that is supported by substantial evidence. 20 C.F.R.
     §725.101(a)(32)(ii); see Muncy v. Elkay Mining Co., 25 BLR 1-21, 1-27 (2011); Vickery v. Director, OWCP, 8 BLR 1-430, 1-432 (1986).

     8
     The pathology reports from two fine needle aspirations of lymph nodes in the
     Miner’s lungs, performed on September 3, 2016, indicated the presence of anthracotic pigment but did not mention pneumoconiosis. Director’s Exhibit 11 at 22-26. A finding of anthracotic pigmentation is insufficient, by itself, to constitute a diagnosis of pneumoconiosis under the regulations. 20 C.F.R. §§718.201(a)(1), 718.202(a)(4).

                                          5
     

     Citing the transcript of the telephonic hearing held in this claim, the ALJ found
     “Employer and Claimant agree with the Director’s finding of 7.9 years coal mine employment. A review of the record supports this concession.” Decision and Order at 3, citing Hearing Transcript at 5, 7.

     Contrary to the ALJ’s finding, the parties did not agree to 7.9 years of coal mine
     employment. During the hearing, Employer indicated it contested the length of coal mine employment, stating the district director found “approximately seven years” of coal mine employment” in a Proposed Decision and Order issued in the miner’s claim and approximately ten years in the Proposed Decision and Order issued in the survivor’s claim.9 Hearing Transcript at 5. Similarly, in her closing brief to the ALJ, Claimant indicated she contested the length of coal mine employment and argued the Miner worked in coal mine employment for ten years. Claimant’s Closing Brief at 1-2 (unpaginated).

     Because both parties indicated the length of the Miner’s coal mine employment was
     

     a contested issue and Claimant explicitly argued the evidence of record establishes ten years, the ALJ erred in basing her length of coal mine employment finding on an ostensible agreement of the parties. Further, insofar as she summarily stated that the record supports a finding of 7.9 years, her finding does not satisfy the explanatory requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §557(c)(3)(A), as incorporated into the Act by 30 U.S.C. §932(a).10 See Wojtowicz v. Duquesne Light Co., 12 BLR 1-162, 1-165 (1989).

     Therefore, we vacate the ALJ’s determination that the Miner had 7.9 years of coal
     mine employment.11 However, because no party contends the Miner had more than ten

     9
     In the Revised Proposed Decision and Order – Denying Request for Modification
     issued July 1, 2020, the district director found the Miner had 7.9 years of coal mine employment. Director’s Exhibit 41 at 2.
     10
     The Administrative Procedure Act provides that every adjudicatory decision must
     include “findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis therefore, on all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented . . . .” 5 U.S.C. §557(c)(3)(A), as incorporated into the Act by 30 U.S.C. §932(a).
     11
     Since Claimant alleged the Miner had ten years of coal mine employment and
     Employer argues the Miner had fewer years, there is no contention the Miner was engaged in coal mine employment for more than ten years. Thus, there is no issue as to whether Claimant is eligible for the Section 411(c)(4) presumption, which can be invoked only if the Miner had 15 or more years of qualifying coal mine employment. Nevertheless,
     6
     years of coal mine employment, we affirm her finding that the
     Section 411 (c)(4) presumption cannot be invoked.

                      Entitlement under 20 C.F.R. Part 718
     

     Finally, as noted above, we hold the ALJ erred in failing to render all necessary
     findings in this case. See Sea “B” Mining Co. v. Addison, 831 F.3d 244, 252-53 (4th Cir. 2016).

     In a survivor’s claim when the statutory presumptions are not invoked, a claimant
     

     is entitled to benefits if she establishes that the miner had pneumoconiosis12 arising out of coal mine employment and his death was due to pneumoconiosis. See 20 C.F.R.
     §§718.202(a), 718.203, 718.205(a); see also Trumbo, 17 BLR at 1-87-88. Death is considered due to pneumoconiosis if pneumoconiosis caused or was a substantially contributing cause or factor leading to the miner’s death. 20 C.F.R. §718.205(b)(1), (2). Pneumoconiosis is a substantially contributing cause if it hastens the miner’s death. 20 C.F.R. §718.205(b)(6). Failure to establish any one of the requisite elements of entitlement precludes an award of benefits. See Trumbo, 17 BLR at 1-87-88.

     Although the ALJ properly found Claimant could not invoke the Section 411(c)(4)
     presumption of death due to pneumoconiosis because the Miner had less than fifteen years of qualifying coal mine employment, the ALJ rendered no findings as to whether Claimant established entitlement to benefits under Part 718. Addison, 831 F.3d at 252-53. The Board lacks the authority to render factual findings to fill in gaps in the ALJ’s opinion. McCune v. Cent. Appalachian Coal Co., 6 BLR 1-996, 1-998 (1984).

                               Remand Instructions
     

because it might be relevant otherwise, as noted below, the ALJ should make a proper finding as to the years of coal mine employment on remand.
12
“Legal pneumoconiosis” includes any chronic lung disease or impairment and its sequelae arising out of coal mine employment. 20 C.F.R. §718.201(a)(2). The definition includes “any chronic pulmonary disease or respiratory or pulmonary impairment significantly related to, or substantially aggravated by, dust exposure in coal mine employment.” 20 C.F.R. §718.201(b). “Clinical pneumoconiosis” consists of “those diseases recognized by the medical community as pneumoconioses, i.e., the conditions characterized by permanent deposition of substantial amounts of particulate matter in the lungs and the fibrotic reaction of the lung tissue to that deposition caused by dust exposure in coal mine employment.” 20 C.F.R. §718.201(a)(1).

7
On remand, the ALJ must determine the length of the Miner’s coal mine employment using any reasonable method of computation and taking into consideration all relevant evidence. See Muncy, 25 BLR at 1-27. She must address Claimant’s post-hearing argument on the length of the Miner’s coal mine employment. Claimant’s Closing Brief at 1-2. Further, the ALJ must explain her method of calculation and set forth her findings in detail, including the underlying rationale for her decision. See Wojtowicz, 12 BLR at 1- 165.

8
The ALJ must determine whether Claimant has established the Miner had pneumoconiosis arising out of coal mine employment and that the Miner’s death was due to pneumoconiosis. See 20 C.F.R. §§718.202(a), 718.203, 718.205(a).

The ALJ must also adequately explain her findings as the APA requires. Wojtowicz, 12 BLR at 1-165.

Accordingly, the ALJ’s Decision and Order Denying Benefits is affirmed in part and vacated in part, and the case is remanded for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

SO ORDERED.

JUDITH S. BOGGS
Administrative Appeals Judge

GREG J. BUZZARD
Administrative Appeals Judge

MELISSA LIN JONES
Administrative Appeals Judge