William Vanover v. Dove Coal, Incorporated (Board decision, July 23, 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

William Vanover worked 22 years in underground coal mining and claimed black lung benefits on a subsequent claim. The administrative law judge found a totally disabling respiratory impairment, applied the Section 411(c)(4) presumption, and found a change in an applicable condition of entitlement. The Board affirmed the finding of total disability based on Dr. Raj's medical opinion, treatment records documenting shortness of breath during routine activities, and the demands of Vanover's former roof bolter work. It rejected the employer's argument that Dr. Dahhan's contrary opinion was better reasoned because that opinion did not reconcile Vanover's exertional symptoms with the heavy manual labor his job required. The Board also affirmed that the employer had not rebutted the presumption and upheld the benefits award.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: The Section 411(c)(4) presumption under 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4), including the total disability requirement under 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(b)(1)(iii).
• Outcome: The administrative law judge's award of black lung benefits was affirmed.
• Key point: A medical opinion that does not reconcile a miner's exertional symptoms with the heavy labor required by his usual work may be found inadequately reasoned.

Full text (DOL BRB public release)

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

BRB No. 25-0025 BLA

WILLIAM VANOVER
)
)
Claimant-Respondent
)
)
v. )
)
DOVE COAL, INCORPORATED
)
)
and
)
NOT-PUBLISHED
)
NATIONAL UNION FIRE
)
INSURANCE/AIG
) DATE ISSUED: 07/23/2025
)
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 on a Subsequent Claim of Joseph E. Kane, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of Labor.

Paisley Newsome (Maples Tucker & Jacobs LLC), Birmingham, Alabama, for Claimant.

Daniel G. Murdock (Fulton, Devlin & Powers, LLC), Lexington, Kentucky, for Employer and its Carrier.

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

PER CURIAM:

Employer and its Carrier (Employer) appeal Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Joseph E. Kane’s1 Decision and Order Awarding Benefits on a Subsequent Claim (2021- BLA-05355) rendered on a subsequent claim2 filed on November 4, 2019, 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 worked for twenty-two years in underground coal mine employment and found Claimant established a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment. 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2). Thus he found Claimant invoked the presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis at Section 411(c)(4) of the Act,3 and established a change in an applicable condition of entitlement. 4

1 ALJ Larry S. Merck was originally assigned to adjudicate this case, and he conducted a telephonic formal hearing on March 7, 2023. Hearing Tr. at 4. Subsequently, ALJ Merck retired from the Office of Administrative Law Judges and the case was reassigned to ALJ Kane (the ALJ) to render a decision in this matter. Decision and Order at 3.
2 This is Claimant’s fourth claim for benefits.
The district director denied his prior claim, filed on October 5, 2015, because Claimant failed to establish any element of entitlement. Director’s Exhibit 3. Claimant did not further pursue this claim until filing the current claim on November 4, 2019. Director’s Exhibit 5.
3 Section 411(c)(4) of the Act 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 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 Claimant failed to establish any element of entitlement in his 2

30 U.S.C. §921(c)(4) (2018); 20 C.F.R. §725.309. He further found Employer did not rebut the presumption and awarded benefits.

On appeal, Employer argues the ALJ erred in finding Claimant established total disability and thereby invoked the Section 411(c)(4) presumption. 5 Claimant responds, urging affirmance of the award. 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.6 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, 361-62 (1965).

Invocation of the Section 411(c)(4) Presumption – Total Disability

To invoke the Section 411(c)(4) presumption, a 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, prevents him from performing his usual coal mine work or comparable gainful work. See 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, 7 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

prior claim, the ALJ required him to submit new evidence establishing at least one element of entitlement to obtain review of this claim on the merits. Decision and Order at 5.
5 We affirm, as unchallenged on appeal, the ALJ’s finding that Claimant established

twenty-two years of underground coal mine employment. See Skrack v. Island Creek Coal Co., 6 BLR 1-710, 1-711 (1983); Decision and Order at 4.
6 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 Transcript at 24 (Mar. 7, 2023).
7 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).

3

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 opinions, Claimant’s treatment records, and the evidence as a whole.8 20 C.F.R.
§718.204(b)(2)(iv); Decision and Order at 9-15. Employer contends the ALJ erred in finding Claimant established a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment based on the medical opinion evidence and Claimant’s treatment records. Employer’s Brief at 9-

13. We disagree.

    The ALJ determined Claimant’s usual coal mine job as a roof bolter required “heavy
    

    manual labor.”9 Decision and Order at 7; Hearing Tr. at 18-19. He then considered the medical opinions of Drs. Raj and Dahhan. Dr. Raj diagnosed a moderate obstruction and exertional hypoxemia based on the objective testing he conducted. Additionally considering Claimant’s report of worsening shortness of breath when walking twenty feet uphill, Dr. Raj concluded Claimant “cannot meet the exertional requirements of his last job.” Director’s Exhibit 11 at 5. The ALJ found Dr. Raj’s opinion well-documented and reasoned, as it is based on objective evidence, Claimant’s symptoms, and the exertional demands of his usual coal mine work. Decision and Order at 10.

    By contrast, Dr. Dahhan diagnosed a mild obstructive impairment with either mild
    or no hypoxemia; he noted Claimant’s history of dyspnea on exertion but opined Claimant’s mild impairment does not preclude his usual work. Employer’s Exhibits 1, 1a.10 The ALJ found Dr. Dahhan’s opinion not well-reasoned, noting he failed to explain how Claimant could perform heavy manual labor given his respiratory symptoms and

     8 The ALJ found Claimant did not establish total disability based on the pulmonary
    

function studies or arterial blood gas studies, 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 7-9.
9 As Employer does not challenge this finding, we affirm it. See Skrack, 6 BLR at 1-711.
10 The record reveals that Dr. Dahhan’s May 18, 2020 report is listed as Director’s

Exhibit 14. However, this exhibit only contains Employer’s cover letter for its submission of this report. Director’s Exhibit 14. Dr. Dahhan’s actual report can be found as an attachment to his April 14, 2022 deposition transcript. See Employer’s Exhibit 1, Attachment 2. References to Dr. Dahhan’s deposition shall be cited as Employer’s Exhibit 1; references to his report shall be cited as Employer’s Exhibit 1a.

4

limited exertional tolerance – specifically, his inability to exercise on a stationary bike for more than three minutes during his blood gas study before stopping due to shortness of breath. Decision and Order at 12.

The ALJ also found Dr. Alam’s treatment records support a finding of total disability as they document chronic dyspnea exacerbated by routine daily activities, including bending forward and climbing stairs. Decision and Order at 14; Claimant’s Exhibit 6 at 39. He thus found Dr. Raj’s opinion and Dr. Alam’s treatment records establish Claimant has a totally disabling respiratory impairment at 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2)(iv). Decision and Order at 12-14. Employer challenges this finding.

Employer argues Dr. Dahhan’s opinion is better reasoned and documented than Dr.
Raj’s opinion because Dr. Dahhan considered more objective evidence than Dr. Raj and his opinion accounted for Claimant’s symptoms, usual work, and objective testing showing no more than a mild impairment. Employer’s Brief at 10-12. It also contends the ALJ arbitrarily found Claimant’s inability to exercise for more than three minutes during blood gas testing demonstrates a disabling respiratory impairment and in faulting Dr. Dahhan for not explaining how Claimant could nonetheless perform his usual work.11 We see no error in the ALJ’s weighing of the medical opinion evidence.

We reject Employer’s assertion the ALJ erred in crediting Dr. Raj’s opinion as reasoned and documented. The ALJ acted within his discretion in finding Dr. Raj’s opinion well-reasoned and documented, as it is based on the objective testing he conducted, Claimant’s reported symptoms, and the undisputed exertional requirements of Claimant’s usual coal mine work. See Director, OWCP v. Rowe, 710 F.2d 251, 255 (6th Cir. 1983). An opinion need not incorporate every piece of evidence in the record to be credited; what matters is whether the physician’s underlying documentation and reasoning support his conclusions. See Fields v. Island Creek Coal Co., 10 BLR 1-19, 1-22 (1987). As Employer does not otherwise challenge the ALJ’s determination to credit Dr. Raj’s opinion as reasoned and documented, we affirm this finding.

Moreover, the ALJ permissibly found Dr. Dahhan’s review of additional materials did not render his opinion more persuasive, particularly when Dr. Dahhan failed to meaningfully address the incompatibility of Claimant’s dyspnea on exertion with the heavy exertional requirements of his usual work.12 See Cornett v. Benham Coal, Inc., 227 F.3d

11 Employer characterizes this as an impermissible inference not grounded in objective data. Employer’s Brief at 12.
12 Claimant consistently reported dyspnea on exertion to his treating and examining

physicians, and Dr. Dahhan terminated Claimant’s exercise blood gas study after less than 5

569, 578 (6th Cir. 2000) (“even a ‘mild’ respiratory impairment may preclude the performance of the miner’s usual duties, depending on the exertional requirements of the miner’s usual coal mine employment”); Decision and Order at 12. Contrary to Employer’s assertion, in making his finding, the ALJ did not presume that Claimant’s respiratory symptoms and exercise intolerance, standing alone, evidences a disabling respiratory impairment. Rather, he permissibly inferred from the record that Claimant’s shortness of breath with limited exertion is inconsistent with his having the respiratory capacity to perform the heavy manual labor required in his usual coal mine work.13 See Morrison v. Tenn. Consol. Coal Co., 644 F.3d 473, 478 (6th Cir. 2011); Jericol Mining, Inc. v. Napier, 301 F.3d 703, 713-14 (6th Cir. 2002); Tenn. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Crisp, 866 F.2d 179, 185 (6th Cir. 1989); Decision and Order at 12; Employer’s Exhibits 1 at 7, 1a at 9. As Dr. Dahhan did not address this limitation in functional capacity or reconcile it with his conclusion that Claimant’s mild impairment does not preclude his prior coal mine work, the ALJ reasonably found Dr. Dahhan’s opinion inadequately explained and not well- reasoned. See Napier, 301 F.3d at 713-14; Crisp, 866 F.2d at 185.

As the ALJ permissibly found Dr. Raj’s opinion well-reasoned, Dr. Dahhan’s opinion not well-reasoned, and Dr. Alam’s treatment records support a finding of total disability, we affirm his finding that Claimant established total disability by a preponderance of medical opinions at 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2)(iv). See Napier, 301 F.3d at 713-14; Crisp, 866 F.2d at 185; Decision and Order at 12. Thus, we also affirm the ALJ’s finding Claimant established total disability based on the evidence as a whole and,

three minutes due to shortness of breath, at which point Claimant had achieved only 2.8 metabolic equivalents (METs). Director’s Exhibit 11 at 3; Claimant’s Exhibit 6 at 18, 39; Employer’s Exhibits 1 at 7, 1a at 9.
13 Employer argues the ALJ erred in crediting Dr. Alam’s treatment records because

they do not contain an explicit opinion that Claimant is unable to perform his usual coal mine work. Employer’s Brief at 13. But an ALJ may rely on a miner’s exertional symptoms that a physician documents to support a finding of total disability even if the physician does not formally diagnose total disability. See Cornett v. Benham Coal, Inc., 227 F.3d 569, 578 (6th Cir. 2000); Budash v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 9 BLR 1-48, 1-51- 52 (1986) (en banc) (description of physical limitations in performing routine tasks may be sufficient to allow the ALJ to infer total disability); DeFelice v. Consolidation Coal Co., 5 BLR 1–275, 1–277-78 (1982) (same). The ALJ reasonably found Dr. Alam’s notes – reporting dyspnea with routine daily activities such as bending forward and climbing stairs
– consistent with an inability to perform heavy manual labor. Decision and Order at 14; Claimant’s Exhibit 6 at 39. He permissibly relied on those records as supporting Dr. Raj’s credited diagnosis of total disability. See Cornett, 227 F.3d at 578; Budash, 9 BLR at 1- 51-52; DeFelice, 5 BLR at 1–277-78.
6

therefore, invoked the Section 411(c)(4) presumption and established a change in an applicable condition of entitlement. 20 C.F.R. §§718.204(b)(2), 718.305, 725.309(c); see Rafferty, 9 BLR at 1-232; Shedlock, 9 BLR at 1-198; Decision and Order at 14-15. We also affirm, as unchallenged, his finding that Employer did not rebut the presumption. 20 C.F.R. §718.305(d)(1); see Skrack, 6 BLR at 1-711; Decision and Order at 15-22.

Accordingly, the ALJ’s Decision and Order Awarding Benefits on a Subsequent Claim is affirmed.

SO ORDERED.

DANIEL T. GRESH, Chief
Administrative Appeals Judge

JONATHAN ROLFE
Administrative Appeals Judge

MELISSA LIN JONES
Administrative Appeals Judge

7