James Rapp v. Island Creek Coal Company (Board decision, March 12, 2025)

BRB final decision. The Benefits Review Board affirmed the administrative law judge's award 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

James Rapp sought black lung benefits after 30.58 years of coal mine employment. The administrative law judge found complicated pneumoconiosis from the x-ray evidence and awarded benefits under the irrebuttable presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis. Island Creek Coal challenged the weighing of x-rays and medical opinions. The Board held that the judge reasonably credited the positive x-ray readings, found the contrary opinions unpersuasive, and considered the evidence as a whole. It affirmed the award of benefits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: The irrebuttable presumption for complicated pneumoconiosis under 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(3) and 20 C.F.R. § 718.304.
• Outcome: The administrative law judge's black lung benefits award was affirmed.
• Key point: Positive x-ray evidence supported complicated pneumoconiosis, and the judge gave adequate reasons for discounting contrary medical opinions.

Full text (BRB public release)

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

BRB No. 24-0106 BLA

JAMES RAPP
)
)
Claimant-Respondent
)
)
v. )
)
ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY
)
)
and
)
NOT-PUBLISHED
)
CONSOL ENERGY
)
) DATE ISSUED: 03/12/2025
Employer/Carrier-
)
Petitioners
)
)
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’
)
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
)
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
)
)
Party-in-Interest
)
DECISION and ORDER
Appeal of the Decision and Order Awarding Benefits of Sean M. Ramaley, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of Labor.

Joseph E. Wolfe and Brad A. Austin (Wolfe Williams & Austin), Norton, Virginia, for Claimant.

Ashley M. Harman and Lucinda L. Fluharty (Jackson Kelly PLLC), Morgantown, West Virginia, for Employer.

Before: GRESH, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, BOGGS and BUZZARD, Administrative Appeals Judges.
GRESH, Chief Administrative
Appeals Judge, and BUZZARD,
Administrative Appeals Judge:

Employer appeals Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Sean M. Ramaley’s Decision and Order Awarding Benefits (2021-BLA-05514) rendered on a claim filed pursuant to the Black Lung Benefits Act, as amended, 30 U.S.C. §§901-944 (2018) (Act). This case involves a subsequent claim filed on September 20, 2019.1

The ALJ credited Claimant with 30.58 years of coal mine employment and found he established the existence of complicated pneumoconiosis. Thus, he found Claimant invoked the irrebuttable presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis at Section 411(c)(3) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(3); see 20 C.F.R. §718.304, and established a change in an applicable condition of entitlement.2 20 C.F.R. §725.309. He further found Claimant’s complicated pneumoconiosis arose out of his coal mine employment, 20 C.F.R.
§718.203(b), and awarded benefits.

On appeal, Employer argues the ALJ erred in finding Claimant established complicated pneumoconiosis.3 Claimant responds in support of the award of benefits. The Acting Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, has not filed a response brief.

1
This is Claimant’s fifth claim for benefits. On August 6, 2009, the district director denied Claimant’s most recent claim, filed on December 9, 2008, because he failed to establish any element of entitlement. Decision and Order at 2; Director’s Exhibit 4. Claimant took no further action until filing his current claim. Director’s Exhibit 6.
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 he finds that “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); 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 Claimant failed to establish any element of entitlement in his prior denied claim, he had to establish at least one element to obtain review of the merits of his current claim. Id.
3
We affirm, as unchallenged on appeal, the ALJ’s finding that Claimant established 30.58 years of coal mine employment. See Skrack v. Island Creek Coal Co., 6 BLR 1-710, 1-711 (1983); Decision and Order at 4-6.

2
 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.4 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(3), as incorporated by 30 U.S.C.
§932(a); O’Keeffe v. Smith, Hinchman and Grylls Assocs., Inc., 380 U.S. 359 (1965).

Invocation of the Section 411(c)(3) Presumption – Complicated Pneumoconiosis

Section 411(c)(3) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(3), provides an irrebuttable presumption that a miner is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis if he suffers 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 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(3); 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-ray evidence supports a finding of complicated pneumoconiosis, 20 C.F.R. §718.304(a), and the computed tomography (CT) scan and medical opinion evidence does not establish the presence or absence of the disease.5 20 C.F.R. §718.304(c); Decision and Order at 21-24. Weighing all the evidence together, he concluded the x-ray evidence outweighs the CT scan and medical opinion evidence. He thus found Claimant established the existence of complicated pneumoconiosis.6 Decision and Order at 24.

4
This case arises within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit because Claimant performed his coal mine employment in West Virginia. See Shupe v. Director, OWCP, 12 BLR 1-200, 1-202 (1989) (en banc); Director’s Exhibit 9.
5
As the ALJ’s finding that the CT scan evidence does not establish the presence or absence of complicated pneumoconiosis is unchallenged, we affirm it. See Skrack, 6 BLR at 1-711; Decision and Order at 22.
6
The ALJ found there is no biopsy evidence in the record. 20 C.F.R. §718.304(b);
Decision and Order at 22.

3
 Section 718.304(a) – X-rays

The ALJ considered interpretations of x-rays dated January 28, 2020,7 and June 25, 2020, along with interpretations of two x-rays taken on February 22, 2022.8 20 C.F.R.
§718.304(a); Decision and Order at 6, 21-22.

Dr. DePonte, a dually-qualified Board-certified radiologist and B reader, read the January 28, 2020 x-ray as positive for simple pneumoconiosis, profusion 1/1, and complicated pneumoconiosis, Category A. Director’s Exhibit 16. Dr. Adcock, who is also a dually-qualified radiologist, read the x-ray as negative for simple and complicated pneumoconiosis. Director’s Exhibit 19.

Dr. DePonte read the June 25, 2020 x-ray as positive for simple pneumoconiosis, profusion 1/1, and complicated pneumoconiosis, Category A. Claimant’s Exhibit 4. Dr. Adcock and Dr. Ranavaya, a B reader, read the x-ray as negative for simple and complicated pneumoconiosis. Director’s Exhibit 20; Employer’s Exhibit 2.

Finally, Dr. DePonte read the February 22, 2022 x-rays as positive for simple pneumoconiosis, profusion 1/1, and complicated pneumoconiosis, Category A. Claimant’s Exhibits 1, 2. Drs. Seaman and Meyer, who are also dually-qualified radiologists, each read one of the February 22, 2022 x-rays as positive for simple pneumoconiosis, profusion of 1/1, and negative for complicated pneumoconiosis. Employer’s Exhibits 5, 6.

Based on his consideration of the conflicting readings, the ALJ found the x-ray evidence establishes simple pneumoconiosis. Decision and Order at 22. With respect to complicated pneumoconiosis, the ALJ found Drs. Adcock’s and Ranavaya’s negative readings of the January 28, 2020 and June 25, 2020 x-rays unpersuasive because they did not diagnose even simple pneumoconiosis, contrary to his finding that the x-ray evidence supports simple pneumoconiosis. Id. at 21. Based on Dr. DePonte’s positive readings of those two x-rays, the ALJ concluded they support a finding of complicated pneumoconiosis. Id. He found the readings of both February 22, 2022 x-rays in equipoise regarding complicated pneumoconiosis because equally-qualified radiologists read each x- ray as positive and negative for the disease. Id. Because the readings of two x-rays are in

7
Dr. Gaziano, a B reader, read the January 28, 2020 x-ray for quality only.
Director’s Exhibit 17.
8
The ALJ correctly noted that Dr. DePonte testified she interpreted two completely different chest x-rays dated February 22, 2022, with the first x-ray taken at 1:07 P.M. and the second x-ray taken at 1:21 P.M. Decision and Order at 6 n.7; Claimant’s Exhibit 5 at 19-20.

4 equipoise and two x-rays are positive for complicated pneumoconiosis, the ALJ concluded the x-ray evidence establishes the existence of the disease. Id. at 22.

Employer argues the ALJ did not adequately explain his basis for concluding the x- ray evidence supports a finding of simple pneumoconiosis and thus erred in discrediting the opinions of Drs. Adcock and Ranavaya. Employer’s Brief at 13-14. We disagree.

The ALJ permissibly found the February 22, 2022 x-rays positive for simple pneumoconiosis based on the uncontradicted positive readings of Drs. DePonte, Seaman, and Meyer. See Worhach v. Director, OWCP, 17 BLR 1-105 (1993); Roberts v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 8 BLR 1-211 (1985); Dixon v. North Camp Coal Co., 8 BLR 1-344 (1985); Decision and Order at 22. He also permissibly found the February 22, 2022 x-rays entitled to greatest weight regarding simple pneumoconiosis based on their recency. See Thorn v. Itmann Coal Co., 3 F.3d 713, 719 (4th Cir. 1993); Adkins v. Director, OWCP, 958 F.2d 49, 51-52 (4th Cir. 1992) (given the progressive nature of pneumoconiosis, “later test or exam” is a “more reliable indicator of [a] miner’s condition than an earlier one” where a “miner’s condition has worsened”); see also Woodward v. Director, OWCP, 991 F.2d 314, 319-20 (6th Cir. 1993); Kincaid v. Island Creek Coal Co., 26 BLR 1-43, 1-49-52 (2023).

Because we can discern what the ALJ did and why he did it, his findings with respect to simple pneumoconiosis satisfy the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).9 See 5 U.S.C.
§557(c)(3)(A), as incorporated into the Act by 30 U.S.C. §932(a); Wojtowicz v. Duquesne Light Co., 12 BLR 1-162, 1-165 (1989); see also Harman Mining Co. v. Director, OWCP
[Looney], 678 F.3d 305, 316 (4th Cir. 2012) (if a reviewing court can discern what the ALJ did and why he did it, the duty of explanation under the APA is satisfied); Mingo Logan Coal Co v. Owens, 724 F.3d 550, 557 (4th Cir. 2013) (duty of explanation under the APA is satisfied as long as the reviewing court can discern what the ALJ did and why he did it). We therefore affirm the ALJ’s finding that the x-ray evidence established the existence of simple pneumoconiosis.

Further, the ALJ permissibly found the readings of the February 22, 2022 x-rays in equipoise regarding complicated pneumoconiosis because equally-qualified radiologists read the x-rays as positive and negative for the disease. See Sea “B” Mining Co. v. Addison, 831 F.3d 244, 256-57 (4th Cir. 2016). In addition, the ALJ permissibly found Drs. Adcock’s and Ranavaya’s readings of the January 28, 2020 and June 25, 2020 x-rays

9
The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§500-591, provides that every adjudicatory decision must include “findings and conclusions and the reasons or basis therefor, 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).

5 as negative for complicated pneumoconiosis unpersuasive because they failed to diagnose even simple pneumoconiosis, contrary to his finding that the x-ray evidence establishes the disease. See Underwood v. Elkay Mining, Inc., 105 F.3d 946, 949 (4th Cir. 1997); Kuchwara v. Director, OWCP, 7 BLR 1-167, 1-170 (1984); Decision and Order at 21. He thus permissibly found Dr. DePonte’s readings of the January 28, 2020 and June 25, 2020 x-rays as positive for complicated pneumoconiosis entitled to greater weight than Drs. Adcock’s and Ranavaya’s negative readings of the x-rays. See Addison, 831 F.3d at 256- 57; Decision and Order at 22.

Having found the readings of two x-rays positive for complicated pneumoconiosis and two x-rays in equipoise regarding the disease, the ALJ permissibly found the x-ray evidence supports a finding of complicated pneumoconiosis. 20 C.F.R. §718.304(a); see Addison, 831 F.3d at 256-57; Decision and Order at 22. As it is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the ALJ’s finding.

Section 718.304(c) – Medical Opinions

The ALJ next considered the medical opinions of Drs. Nader, Ranavaya, and Rosenberg. Decision and Order at 22-24. Dr. Nader opined Claimant has complicated pneumoconiosis, while Drs. Ranavaya and Rosenberg opined he does not. Director’s Exhibits 16, 20, 21; Employer’s Exhibits 4, 7, 9. The ALJ found Dr. Nader’s opinion is based on an incomplete medical record and thus entitled to little weight. Decision and Order at 22. He also found Drs. Ranavaya’s and Rosenberg’s opinions inadequately explained and equivocal, and thus entitled to little weight. Id. at 23-24. Thus, he found the medical opinion evidence does not undermine the credibility of the positive x-ray evidence. Id. at 24. Weighing all the relevant evidence together, the ALJ found Claimant established the existence of complicated pneumoconiosis and therefore invoked the irrebuttable presumption. Id.

Employer argues the ALJ erred in discrediting the opinions of Drs. Ranavaya and Rosenberg. Employer’s Brief at 14-17. We disagree.

Dr. Ranavaya interpreted the June 25, 2020 x-ray and opined there are no radiological abnormalities consistent with either simple or complicated pneumoconiosis. Director’s Exhibit 20 at 5. He identified an ill-defined patchy opacity in the right mid and lower thorax “most probably related to chronic scarring from pneumonia or pleural changes versus atelectasis.” Director’s Exhibit 20 at 5. He opined that Dr. DePonte mistakenly diagnosed a Category A large opacity on the x-ray because she was unaware of Claimant’s history of recurrent pneumonia and other non-occupational pulmonary diseases. Id. at 11. Dr. Ranavaya also relied on a March 28, 2020 CT scan that did not show a large opacity, nodularity, or interstitial disease. Id.

6
 The ALJ permissibly found Dr. Ranavaya’s opinion unpersuasive because it is based on an x-ray reading that is negative for simple pneumoconiosis, contrary to his finding that the x-ray evidence establishes the disease. See Underwood, 105 F.3d at 949; Kuchwara, 7 BLR at 1-107; Decision and Order at 23. Further, the ALJ permissibly found Dr. Ranavaya’s opinion unpersuasive because the March 28, 2020 CT scan he relied on is not in the record. See Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Cochran, 718 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 2013); Piney Mountain Coal Co. v. Mays, 176 F.3d 753 (4th Cir. 1999); Decision and Order at 23.

Dr. Rosenberg opined that it was “very unlikely” that the x-rays showed simple or complicated disease. He attributed the radiographic abnormalities to Claimant’s complications of pneumonia rather than coal mine dust exposure. Employer’s Exhibit 4 at 7-9. Specifically, he stated the large densities in Claimant’s lungs are not attributable to pneumoconiosis because cases of “latent and progressive pneumoconiosis are rare,” especially where “a miner has left coal mine employment with a negative x-ray.” Id.

Contrary to Employer’s contention, the ALJ permissibly found this reasoning unpersuasive in light of the Department of Labor’s regulation that recognizes pneumoconiosis as “a latent and progressive disease which may first become detectable only after the cessation of coal mine dust exposure.” 20 C.F.R. §718.201(c); see Mullins Coal Co. of Va. V. Director, OWCP, 484 U.S. 135, 151 (1987); Hobet Mining, LLC v. Epling, 783 F.3d 498, 506 (4th Cir. 2015) (medical opinion not in accord with the accepted view that pneumoconiosis can be both latent and progressive may be discredited); Decision and Order at 23. Moreover, the ALJ permissibly found Dr. Rosenberg’s opinion equivocal. See Justice v. Island Creek Coal Co., 11 BLR 1-91, 1-94 (1988) (ALJ may discredit an equivocal opinion); Decision and Order at 24.

Because it is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the ALJ’s finding that the medical opinion evidence does not undermine the ALJ’s finding that the x-ray evidence established the existence of complicated pneumoconiosis. 20 C.F.R. §718.304(c).

Employer’s argument that the opinions of Drs. Ranavaya and Rosenberg outweigh the x-ray evidence amounts to a request to reweigh the evidence, which we are not empowered to do. Anderson v. Valley Camp of Utah, Inc., 12 BLR 1-111, 1-113 (1989). We therefore affirm the ALJ’s finding that all the evidence weighed together establishes the existence of complicated pneumoconiosis and thus Claimant invoked the irrebuttable presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis,10 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(3); see 20

10
Employer argues the ALJ erred in failing to weigh all the relevant evidence together on the issue of simple pneumoconiosis. Employer’s Brief at 7-10 (citing Island Creek Coal Co. v. Compton, 211 F.3d 203 (4th Cir. 2000)). As discussed, we have affirmed the ALJ’s finding that the x-ray evidence established the existence of simple 7
C.F.R. §718.304, and established a change in an applicable condition of entitlement. 20 C.F.R. §725.309; Decision and Order at 24.

We further affirm, as unchallenged, the ALJ’s finding that Claimant’s complicated pneumoconiosis arose out of his coal mine employment. 20 C.F.R. §718.203(b); see Skrack v. Island Creek Coal Co., 6 BLR 1-710, 1-711 (1983); Decision and Order at 24 n.14. Thus, we affirm the award of benefits.

pneumoconiosis. We have also determined the ALJ permissibly found Drs. Adcock’s and Ranavaya’s readings of the January 28, 2020 and June 25, 2020 x-rays as negative for complicated pneumoconiosis unpersuasive because they failed to diagnose even simple pneumoconiosis, contrary to his finding that the x-ray evidence establishes the disease. See Underwood v. Elkay Mining, Inc., 105 F.3d 946, 949 (4th Cir. 1997); Kuchwara v. Director, OWCP, 7 BLR 1-167, 1-170 (1984). In addition, we have determined the ALJ permissibly found Dr. Ranavaya’s opinion unpersuasive because it is based on an x-ray reading that is negative for simple pneumoconiosis, contrary to his finding that the x-ray evidence establishes the disease. Id. Because we have affirmed the ALJ’s finding that Claimant established complicated pneumoconiosis and thus invoked the irrebuttable presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis at Section 411(c)(3), any error the ALJ made in not weighing all the evidence together on the issue of simple pneumoconiosis is harmless. See Larioni v. Director, OWCP, 6 BLR 1-1276, 1-1278 (1984); Decision and Order at 24.

8
Accordingly, the ALJ’s Decision and Order Awarding Benefits is affirmed.

SO ORDERED.

DANIEL T. GRESH, Chief
Administrative Appeals Judge

GREG J. BUZZARD
Administrative Appeals Judge

BOGGS, Administrative Appeals Judge, concurring:

I concur in the result only.

JUDITH S. BOGGS
Administrative Appeals Judge

9