Roy Gibson v. Lone Mountain Processing, Incorporated (Board decision, September 19, 2025)

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

Roy Gibson sought black lung benefits after 18 years of underground coal mine work. A labor judge found that a respiratory impairment prevented him from performing the heavy work of an outby foreman, qualifying him for the 15-year presumption. Lone Mountain Processing argued that the medical evidence did not establish total disability because the objective tests did not meet the regulatory disability values. The Board upheld the judge's reliance on a doctor's explanation of Gibson's breathing limits in relation to his job duties. It also upheld the judge's decision to discount opinions that did not address whether he could perform heavy labor despite those limits. The benefits award was affirmed.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Total disability under 20 C.F.R. § 718.204(b)(2); 15-year presumption under 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4).
• Outcome: Black lung benefits award affirmed.
• Key point: A reasoned medical opinion relating breathing limits to heavy mine work supported total disability despite nonqualifying tests.

Full text (DOL BRB public release)

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

BRB No. 25-0018 BLA

ROY GIBSON
)
)
Claimant-Respondent
)
)
v. )
)
NOT-PUBLISHED
LONE MOUNTAIN PROCESSING,
)
INCORPORATED
)
) DATE ISSUED: 09/19/2025
Employer-Petitioner
)
)
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 Jodeen M. Hobbs, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of Labor.

Wes Addington (Appalachian Citizens’ Law Center, Inc.), Whitesburg, Kentucky, for Claimant.

William S. Mattingly (Jackson Kelly PLLC), Lexington, Kentucky, for Employer.

Before: GRESH, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, ROLFE and JONES, Administrative Appeals Judges.

PER CURIAM:
Employer appeals Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Jodeen M. Hobbs’s Decision and Order Awarding Benefits (2022-BLA-05834) rendered on a claim filed on December 29, 2020, 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 has eighteen years of underground coal mine employment and found he has a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment. 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2). Thus, she found Claimant invoked the presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis at Section 411(c)(4) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(4) (2018).1 The ALJ further found Employer failed to rebut the presumption and awarded benefits.

On appeal, Employer argues the ALJ erred in finding Claimant is totally disabled.2 Claimant responds in support of the award of benefits. The Acting Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, declined to file a response brief.

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.3 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, 361-62 (1965).

Invocation of the Section 411(c)(4) Presumption - 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)(iii). A miner is totally disabled if his pulmonary or respiratory impairment, standing alone,

1 Section 411(c)(4) of the Act provides a rebuttable presumption that a miner is 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); 20 C.F.R. §718.305.
2 We affirm, as unchallenged on appeal, the ALJ’s finding that Claimant has eighteen years of qualifying coal mine employment. See Skrack v. Island Creek Coal Co. 6 BLR 1-710, 1-711 (1983); Decision and Order at 4.
3 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); Hearing Tr. at 14-15.

2 prevents him from performing his usual coal mine work or comparable gainful work.4 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(1). A claimant may establish total disability based on qualifying pulmonary function studies or arterial blood gas studies,5 evidence of pneumoconiosis and cor pulmonale 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).

The ALJ found Claimant established total disability based on the medical opinion evidence, and the evidence as a whole.6 Decision and Order at 11-17. Employer argues the ALJ erred in weighing the medical opinion evidence. Employer’s Brief at 9-12.

The ALJ considered the medical opinions of Drs. Alam, Dahhan, and Rosenberg.
Decision and Order at 12-17. Dr. Alam opined Claimant is totally disabled based on his pulmonary function study results, symptoms, and the exertional requirements of his usual coal mine employment. Director’s Exhibits 16, 24-26. Drs. Dahhan and Rosenberg opined he is not disabled because the valid objective studies are not qualifying. Director’s Exhibit 23; Employer’s Exhibits 1, 2. The ALJ found Dr. Alam’s opinion to be reasoned and documented, but she discredited the opinions of Drs. Dahhan and Rosenberg as inadequately reasoned. Decision and Order at 16-17. Consequently, she found the medical opinion evidence supports a finding of total disability. Id. at 17.

4 The ALJ found Claimant’s usual coal mine work as an outby foreman required heavy exertion. Decision and Order at 4-5. As this finding is unchallenged, we affirm it. See Skrack, 6 BLR at 1-711.
5 A “qualifying” pulmonary function study or blood gas study yields results equal to or less than the applicable table values in Appendices B and C of 20 C.F.R. Part 718, respectively. A “non-qualifying” study yields results exceeding those values. See 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2)(i), (ii).
6 The ALJ found the pulmonary function and blood gas study evidence does not support a finding of total disability, and there is no evidence of cor pulmonale with right- sided congestive heart failure. 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2)(i)-(iii); Decision and Order at 7-

11. Thus, to the extent Employer argues the ALJ erred in relying on the pulmonary function
    testing to support a finding of total disability, we reject its argument. See Larioni v. Director, OWCP, 6 BLR 1-1276, 1-1278 (1984); Employer’s Brief at 4-9.

                                         3
    

    Employer argues the ALJ erred in crediting Dr. Alam’s opinion. 7 Employer’s Brief
    at 9-11.

    Dr. Alam considered Claimant’s coal mine employment as a foreman where he
    operated equipment, a bolter, a shuttle car, and a scoop while working at the face of an underground mine. Director’s Exhibit 16 at 1. He opined that Claimant’s dyspnea and wheezing render him unable to do “anything exertional.” Id. at 2. Dr. Alam acknowledged the other physicians considered Claimant’s pulmonary function studies to be invalid because they are not reproducible, but he opined the variable results are due to Claimant’s lungs being impaired rather than a lack of effort and that they demonstrate a severe airflow obstruction despite the variability. Director’s Exhibits 16 at 3-4; 25; 26.

    The ALJ permissibly credited Dr. Alam’s opinion as she found he persuasively
    explained that Claimant’s dyspnea with exertion would prevent him from being able to perform the heavy labor required by his usual coal mine employment. 8 See Scott v. Mason Coal Co., 60 F.3d 1138, 1141 (4th Cir. 1995) (physician’s identification of the miner’s symptoms of “shortness of breath,” “acute shortness of breath,” and “mild shortness of breath” with various activities constitutes a “reasoned medical opinion”); Jordan v. Benefits Review Board, 876 F.2d 1455, 1460 (11th Cir. 1989) (physician’s “recitation of
    [the miner’s] symptoms” constituted relevant evidence that the ALJ must consider absent a specific “basis for a finding that the listed limitations are the patient’s rather than the doctor’s conclusions”); see also Director, OWCP v. Rowe, 710 F.2d 251, 255 (6th Cir. 1983); Cornett v. Benham Coal, Inc., 227 F.3d 569, 578 (6th Cir. 2000) (even a mild impairment may be totally disabling depending on the exertional requirements of a miner’s usual coal mine employment); McMath v. Director, OWCP, 12 BLR 1-6, 1-9 (1988); Decision and Order at 16. Employer’s argument that the ALJ should not have credited Dr. Alam’s opinion because it is less probative amounts to a request to reweigh the evidence,

    7 Employer asserts Dr. Alam considered an incorrect smoking history and the ALJ

erred by failing to address whether that affected the reliability of his report. Employer’s Brief at 10. We need not address Employer’s argument, as it has not explained how the length of Claimant’s smoking history affects the credibility of Dr. Alam’s opinion that he is totally disabled. See Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 413 (2009) (appellant must explain how the “error to which [it] points could have made any difference”); Larioni, 6 BLR at 1-1278.
8 Because the ALJ provided a valid reason for crediting Dr. Alam’s opinion, we need not address Employer’s remaining arguments regarding the weight accorded to his opinion. See Kozele v. Rochester & Pittsburgh Coal Co., 6 BLR 1-378, 1-382 n.4 (1983); Employer’s Brief at 4-11.

4 which the Board is not empowered to do. Anderson v. Valley Camp of Utah, Inc., 12 BLR 1-111, 1-113 (1989).

Employer also asserts the ALJ erred in discrediting the opinions of Drs. Dahhan and Rosenberg for failing to account for Claimant’s reported respiratory or pulmonary symptoms. Employer’s Brief at 11-12. We disagree.

Drs. Dahhan and Rosenberg observed Claimant worked underground in mines between thirty inches and six feet high where he worked as a foreman and operated a scoop, roof bolter, and ram car. Director’s Exhibit 23; Employer’s Exhibits 1, 2. Dr. Dahhan stated Claimant lifted fifty to seventy pounds eight to ten times per day. Employer’s Exhibit 1. Drs. Dahhan and Rosenberg both noted Claimant has a history of occasional cough with sputum production and “dyspnea on exertion such as a flight of stairs” or walking fifty feet, but they concluded he does not have a disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment because his blood gases are normal and his pulmonary function testing is not valid. Director’s Exhibit 23 at 4-6; Employer’s Exhibits 1, 2.

The ALJ observed Drs. Dahhan and Rosenberg acknowledged Claimant’s dyspnea with exertion and the heavy exertional requirements of his usual coal mine employment, but that neither physician addressed whether he would be able to perform heavy labor with his dyspnea. Decision and Order at 17. Additionally, she found them less credible because they did not discuss Dr. Alam’s opinion that Claimant’s lung function renders him unable to perform reproducible pulmonary function studies rather than lack of effort. Id. at 16. Thus, contrary to Employer’s contention, the ALJ provided permissible reasons for finding the opinions of Drs. Dahhan and Rosenberg unpersuasive. See Tenn. Consol. Coal Co. v. Crisp, 866 F.2d 179, 185 (6th Cir. 1989); Rowe, 710 F.2d at 255; Decision and Order at 17.

Consequently, we affirm the ALJ’s determination that the medical opinion evidence supports a finding of total disability at 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2)(iv). We therefore affirm the ALJ’s findings that Claimant established total disability based on the evidence as a whole and thus invoked the Section 411(c)(4) presumption. 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2); Rafferty, 9 BLR at 1-232; Shedlock, 9 BLR at 1-198; Decision and Order at 17. Further, we affirm, as unchallenged, the ALJ’s finding that Employer failed to rebut the presumption. 20 C.F.R. §718.305(d); see Skrack v. Island Creek Coal Co. 6 BLR 1-710, 1-711 (1983); Decision and Order at 23.

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

SO ORDERED.

DANIEL T. GRESH, Chief
Administrative Appeals Judge

JONATHAN ROLFE
Administrative Appeals Judge

MELISSA LIN JONES
Administrative Appeals Judge