William G. Parker v. Webster County Coal, LLC (Board decision, January 30, 2025)

BRB final decision. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the administrative law judge's denial of black lung benefits. Under 20 C.F.R. § 802.406, a Board decision becomes final 60 days after issuance unless a timely petition for judicial review or a timely request for Board reconsideration is filed. A party may request Board reconsideration within 30 days under 20 C.F.R. § 802.407.

Plain-English summary

William Parker appealed the denial of his subsequent black lung benefits claim after thirty-seven years of qualifying coal mine work. He argued that x-ray evidence and his doctors' opinions showed total respiratory disability. The Board held that x-rays show the presence of lung disease but do not by themselves establish the extent of respiratory disability. It also upheld the judge's decision to give no weight to the supporting medical opinions because Parker did not identify a specific error in the judge's reasoning. Because Parker did not prove total disability or a change in an applicable condition of entitlement, the benefits denial stands.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Total disability and subsequent claim requirements under 20 C.F.R. §§ 718.204(b)(2), 725.309(c).
• Outcome: Benefits denial affirmed.
• Key point: Evidence of lung disease does not by itself establish that the worker has a totally disabling respiratory impairment.

Full text (BRB public release)

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

BRB No. 24-0101 BLA

WILLIAM G. PARKER
)
)
Claimant-Petitioner
)
)
v. )
)
NOT-PUBLISHED
WEBSTER COUNTY COAL, LLC
)
)
Employer-Respondent
) DATE ISSUED: 01/30/2025
)
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 Carrie Bland, Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of Labor.

Daniel Sherman (Daniel Sherman, LLC), Greenville, Kentucky, for Claimant.

Sara May (Jones & Jones Law Office PLLC), Pikeville, Kentucky, for Employer.

Before: BOGGS, BUZZARD, and JONES, Administrative Appeals Judges.

PER CURIAM:
 Claimant appeals Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Carrie Bland’s Decision and Order Denying Benefits (2020-BLA-05267) rendered on a subsequent 1 claim filed on July 27, 2017, pursuant to the Black Lung Benefits Act, as amended, 30 U.S.C.
§§901-944 (2018) (Act).

The ALJ accepted the parties’ stipulation that Claimant had thirty-seven years of qualifying coal mine employment but found he did not establish total disability or a change in an applicable condition of entitlement.2 20 C.F.R. §§718.204(b)(2), 725.309(c). She therefore found Claimant did not invoke the presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis at Section 411(c)(4) of the Act,3 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(4) (2018), or establish entitlement under 20 C.F.R. Part 718. Thus, she denied benefits.

On appeal, Claimant argues the ALJ erred in finding he did not establish total disability and thus did not invoke the Section 411(c)(4) presumption.4 Employer responds

1 Claimant filed his first claim on September 22, 2008, which the district director

denied on April 14, 2009, because the evidence did not establish total disability. Director’s Exhibit 1. Claimant withdrew his second claim. Director’s Exhibits 2, 3. A withdrawn claim is considered not to have been filed. See 20 C.F.R. §725.306(b).
2 When a miner files a claim for benefits more than one year after the denial of a

previous claim becomes final, the ALJ must also deny the subsequent claim unless she finds “one of the applicable conditions of entitlement . . . has changed since the date upon which the order denying the prior claim became final.” 20 C.F.R. §725.309(c); see White v. New White Coal Co., 23 BLR 1-1, 1-3 (2004). The “applicable conditions of entitlement” are “those conditions upon which the prior denial was based.” 20 C.F.R.
§725.309(c)(3). Because the district director denied Claimant’s prior claim for failure to establish total disability, Claimant was required to submit new evidence establishing total disability to obtain review of his current claim on the merits. See White, 23 BLR at 1-3; Director’s Exhibit 1.
3 Section 411(c)(4) provides a rebuttable presumption that a miner is totally disabled

due to pneumoconiosis if he has at least fifteen years of underground or substantially similar surface coal mine employment and a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment. 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(4) (2018); see 20 C.F.R. §718.305.
4 As they are unchallenged, we affirm the ALJ’s findings that Claimant established

thirty-seven years of qualifying coal mine employment, the pulmonary function and arterial blood gas study evidence does not establish total disability, and there is no evidence of cor pulmonale with right-sided congestive heart failure. See Skrack v. Island Creek Coal Co., 2 in support of the denial of benefits. The Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, has declined to file a substantive response.

The Benefits Review Board’s scope of review is defined by statute. We must affirm the ALJ’s Decision and Order if it is rational, supported by substantial evidence, and in accordance with applicable law.5 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).

To be entitled to benefits under the Act, Claimant must establish disease (pneumoconiosis); disease causation (it arose out of coal mine employment); disability (a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment); and disability causation (pneumoconiosis substantially contributed to the disability). 30 U.S.C. §901; 20 C.F.R.
§§718.3, 718.202, 718.203, 718.204. Statutory presumptions may assist claimants in establishing the elements of entitlement if certain conditions are met, but failure to establish any element precludes an award of benefits. See Anderson v. Valley Camp of Utah, Inc., 12 BLR 1-111, 1-112 (1989); Trent v. Director, OWCP, 11 BLR 1-26, 1-27 (1987); Perry v. Director, OWCP, 9 BLR 1-1 (1986) (en banc).

Total Disability

To invoke the Section 411(c)(4) presumption, Claimant must establish he has a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment. 20 C.F.R. §718.305(b)(1)(i). A miner is totally disabled if his pulmonary or respiratory impairment, standing alone, prevents him from performing his usual coal mine work and comparable gainful work. 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(1). A claimant may establish total disability based on pulmonary function studies, arterial blood gas studies, evidence of pneumoconiosis and cor pulmona le with right-sided congestive heart failure, or medical opinions. 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2)(i)- (iv). The ALJ must weigh all relevant supporting evidence against all relevant contrary evidence. See Defore v. Ala. By-Products Corp., 12 BLR 1-27, 1-28-29 (1988); Rafferty v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 9 BLR 1-231, 1-232 (1987); Shedlock v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 9 BLR 1-195, 1-198 (1986), aff’d on recon., 9 BLR 1-236 (1987) (en banc).

6 BLR 1-710, 1-711 (1983); 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2)(i)-(iii); Decision and Order at 3, 7- 8, 15.
5 The Board will apply the law of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth

Circuit because Claimant performed his last coal mine employment in Kentucky. See Shupe v. Director, OWCP, 12 BLR 1-200, 1-202 (1989) (en banc); Director’s Exhibit 4; Hearing Transcript at 23.

3
 Claimant argues the ALJ erred in not considering the x-ray evidence in determining whether he is totally disabled because it shows a progression of his disease over time. Claimant’s Brief at 4-6. Contrary to Claimant’s assertion, the ALJ considered Dr. Baker’s statement that Claimant would have difficulty performing his coal mine job and should be considered totally disabled in part because of “his x-ray changes.” Decision and Order at 16; Director’s Exhibit 25 at 3. However, the ALJ permissibly rejected that aspect of Dr. Baker’s opinion because x-rays are diagnostic of the presence of lung disease, not necessarily the extent of a respiratory disability.6 See Short v. Westmoreland Coal Co., 10 BLR 1-127, 1-129 n.4 (1987) (“It is well settled that x-rays, while useful in determining the presence or absence of disease, are not diagnostic of the extent of a respiratory disability.”); Arnoni v. Director, OWCP, 6 BLR 1-423, 1-425 (1983); Decision and Order at 16.

Moreover, the ALJ specifically found Drs. Baker’s, Chavda’s, and Sood’s opinions, the only opinions supportive of Claimant’s burden on total disability, not well-reasoned and entitled to no probative weight. Decision and Order at 16-17. Claimant points out that “[C]laimant’s experts are in agreement that . . . [he] is physically disabled do [sic] to a severe breathing impairment.” Claimant’s Brief at 6. However, he does not identify any specific error in the ALJ’s rationale for finding these medical opinions not adequately reasoned and insufficient to satisfy his burden of proving total disability. 20 C.F.R.
§718.204(b)(2)(iv).

The Board is not permitted to undertake a de novo adjudication of the claim. 20 C.F.R. §802.301(a). Our scope of review requires that a party challenging the Decision and Order identify alleged error by the ALJ, i.e., explain why substantial evidence does not support the result reached or why the Decision and Order is contrary to law. 20 C.F.R.
§802.211(b).

Because we reject Claimant’s argument that the ALJ erred by not finding the x-ray evidence supportive of total disability, and Claimant does not otherwise identify any specific error, we affirm the ALJ’s determinations that Claimant did not establish total

6 We note that a chest x-ray may demonstrate entitlement to an irrebuttable presumption of total disability under the Act if it shows the existence of complicated pneumoconiosis, that is, an opacity greater than one centimeter in diameter which would be classified as Category A, B, or C in accordance with the International Labour Organization classification system. 20 C.F.R. §§718.204(b), 718.304. Claimant does not argue that the x-ray evidence establishes complicated pneumoconiosis, thereby entitling him to the irrebuttable presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis, nor is there any evidence supporting such a contention. 20 C.F.R. §718.304.

4 disability or a change in an applicable condition of entitlement, and therefore did not invoke
the Section 411(c)(4) presumption.
30 U.S.C. §921(c)(4) (2018); 20 C.F.R.
§§718.204(b)(2), 725.309(c), 802.301(a); see Cox v. Benefits Review Board, 791 F.2d 445, 446-47 (6th Cir. 1986); Sarf v. Director, OWCP, 10 BLR 1-119, 120-21 (1987). As Claimant failed to establish total disability, a necessary element of entitlement, benefits are precluded under 20 C.F.R. Part 718. See Anderson, 12 BLR at 1-112.

5
Accordingly, we affirm the ALJ’s Decision and Order Denying Benefits.

SO ORDERED.

JUDITH S. BOGGS
Administrative Appeals Judge

GREG J. BUZZARD
Administrative Appeals Judge

MELISSA LIN JONES
Administrative Appeals Judge