Glenn Sadler v. Cowin & Company, Incorporated (Board decision, December 19, 2025)

Read the official release (dol.gov)

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

Glenn Sadler sought black lung benefits after 20.68 years of qualifying coal mine work. The judge found a totally disabling respiratory impairment based on pulmonary function testing and applied the statutory presumption of disability due to pneumoconiosis. The Board held that the judge reasonably evaluated the conflicting tests and medical opinions. It also upheld her finding that the employer's physicians did not rule out legal pneumoconiosis or show that none of the disability was caused by it. The Board affirmed the benefits award.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Fifteen year presumption under 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4); rebuttal under 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(d)(1).
• Outcome: Benefits award affirmed.
• Key point: The employer's medical opinions did not rebut the presumed disease or its contribution to disability.

Full text (BRB public release)

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

BRB No. 25-0066 BLA

GLENN SADLER
)
)
Claimant-Respondent
)
)
v. )
)
COWIN & COMPANY, INCORPORATED
)
NOT-PUBLISHED
)
Self-Insured
)
Employer-Petitioner
) DATE ISSUED: 12/19/2025
)
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 Lystra A. Harris, Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of Labor.

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

Mary Lou Smith (Howe, Anderson & Smith, P.C.), Washington, D.C., for Employer.

Before: GRESH, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, ROLFE, Administrative Appeals Judge, and ULMER, Acting Administrative Appeals Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Employer appeals Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Lystra A. Harris’s Decision and

Order Awarding Benefits (2022-BLA-05177) rendered on a claim filed on January 16,

2018, pursuant to the Black Lung Benefits Act, as amended, 30 U.S.C. §§901-944 (2018)

(Act).

The ALJ credited Claimant with 20.68 years of qualifying coal mine employment

and found he has a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment. 1 20 C.F.R.

§718.204(b)(2). Thus, she found Claimant invoked the rebuttable presumption of total

disability due to pneumoconiosis at Section 411(c)(4) of the Act, 30 U.S.C. §921(c)(4)

(2018).2 She further found Employer failed to rebut the presumption and awarded benefits.

On appeal, Employer challenges the ALJ’s findings of total disability and

invocation of the rebuttable presumption, as well as the ALJ’s determination that it failed

to rebut the presumption. Claimant filed a response in support of the award of benefits.

The Acting Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, declined to file a

response.

1 As Employer does not challengethe ALJ’s finding of 20.68 years of qualifying coal mine employment, we affirm her finding. See Skrack v. Island Creek Coal Co., 6 BLR 1-710, 1-711 (1983); Decision and Order at 5-10.
2 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); 20 C.F.R. §718.305.

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.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 (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,

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 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).

3 This case arises within the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Eleventh Circuit because Claimant performed his coal mine employment in Alabama. See Shupe v. Director, OWCP, 12 BLR 1-200, 1-202 (1989) (en banc); Director’s Exhibit 3; Hearing Transcript at 14.

3

The ALJ found Claimant established total disability based on the pulmonary

function testing, 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2)(i), and the evidence as a whole.4 Decision and

Order at 11-14, 18.

Pulmonary Function Studies

The ALJ considered the results of four pulmonary function studies dated February

12, 2018, June 21, 2018, July 22, 2019, and November 4, 2022. 5 Decision and Order at

11-14; Director’s Exhibits 11, 15; Claimant’s Exhibit 4; Employer’s Exhibit 1. All four

pulmonary function studies produced qualifying values both before and after the

administration of a bronchodilator.6 The ALJ found the February 12, 2018 and June 21,

2018 pulmonary function studies invalid, the November 4, 2022 pulmonary function study

valid, and the July 22, 2019 pulmonary function study to have reproducibility issues.

Decision and Order at 11-14. Specifically, the ALJ determined only the November 4, 2022

pulmonary function study deserved “normal weight,” Decision and Order at 13, while the

4 The ALJ found the arterial blood gas studies and medical opinion evidence do 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)(ii)-(iv). Decision and Order at 14-18.
5 The July 22, 2019 pulmonary function study was included as part of Claimant’s treatment notes. Claimant’s Exhibit 4.
6 A “qualifying” pulmonary function study yields results equal to or less than the applicable table values contained in Appendix B of 20 C.F.R. Part 718. A “non-qualifying” study yields results exceeding those values. See 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2)(i).

4

July 22, 2019 pulmonary function study deserved “some weight.” Id. The ALJ further

found “all pulmonary function study tests demonstrated – throughout a six-year period – a

severe pulmonary impairment” and found the pulmonary function study evidence as a

whole supports a finding of total disability. Id. at 14.

Employer argues the ALJ erred in finding Claimant established a totally disabling

pulmonary impairment through the pulmonary function study evidence, and the evidence

as a whole. Employer’s Brief at 7-10. We disagree.

When considering pulmonary function study evidence, the ALJ must determine

whether the studies are in substantial compliance with the quality standards. 7 20 C.F.R.

§§718.101(b), 718.103(c); 20 C.F.R. Part 718, App. B; see Keener v. Peerless Eagle Coal

Co., 23 BLR 1-229, 1-237 (2007) (en banc). A study need not precisely conform to the

quality standards; if it is in substantial compliance, it “constitute[s] evidence of the fact for

which it is proffered.” 20 C.F.R. §718.101(b). The ALJ, as the factfinder, must determine

the probative weight to assign the study. See Orek v. Director, OWCP, 10 BLR 1-51, 1-

54-55 (1987). “In the absence of evidence to the contrary, compliance with the [regulatory

7 An ALJ must consider a reviewing physician’s opinion regarding a miner’s effort

in performing a pulmonary function study and whether the study is valid and reliable. See Revnack v. Director, OWCP, 7 BLR 1-771, 1-773 (1985). A physician’s opinion regarding the reliability of a pulmonary function study may constitute substantial evidence for an ALJ’s decision to credit or reject the results of the study. Siegel v. Director, OWCP, 8 BLR 1-156, 1-157 (1985).

5

quality standards] shall be presumed.” 20 C.F.R. §718.103(c). Thus, the party challenging

the validity of a study has the burden to establish the results are suspect or unreliable.

Vivian v. Director, OWCP, 7 BLR 1-360, 1-361 (1984).

Dr. Fino opined the November 4, 2022 study was invalid, but the ALJ found Dr.

Fino’s attempts to invalidate all of the pulmonary function study evidence8 lacked

credibility. Decision and Order at 13; Employer’s Exhibit 2. The ALJ considered Dr.

Fino’s validity opinion but found Dr. Fino did not state with specificity how he determined

the individual pulmonary function study tests were invalid; rather, he generally found the

pulmonary function tests were invalid. Decision and Order at 13 (citing 20 C.F.R.

§718.103(c)). In addition, the ALJ noted that for the November 4, 2022 pulmonary

function study, the technician wrote Claimant’s spirometry was “acceptable and

reproducible,” which the ALJ found undermined Dr. Fino’s contrary opinion. Id. The ALJ

thus determined the November 4, 2022 pulmonary function study was in substantial

compliance with the governing quality standards and therefore valid. Id.

Employer argues the ALJ erred in rejecting Dr. Fino’s opinion that the November

4, 2022 pulmonary function test was invalid, and in finding the test was valid and entitled

to probative weight. Employer’s Brief at 9-10. Specifically, Employer contends the ALJ’s

8 Dr. Fino stated all the pulmonary function studies were invalid because of “premature termination to exhalation,” “lack of reproducibility in the expiratory tracings,” and “lack of an abrupt onset to inhalation.” Employer’s Exhibit 2 at 4.

6

finding that Dr. Fino did not state “with specificity” how he determined the study’s

invalidity is inaccurate. Employer’s Brief at 9. We disagree. The ALJ permissibly found

Dr. Fino’s opinion regarding the validity of the November 4, 2022 test to be less probative,

as Dr. Fino addressed the pulmonary function studies as a whole rather than individually

when discussing why he found each pulmonary function study to be invalid. See U.S. Steel

Mining Co. v. Director, OWCP [Jones], 386 F.3d 977, 992 (11th Cir. 2004) (whether a

medical opinion is sufficiently reasoned is a credibility determination for the ALJ);

Director, OWCP v. Rowe, 710 F.2d 251, 255 (6th Cir. 1983); Orek, 10 BLR at 1-54 (party

alleging objective study is invalid must “specify in what way the study fails to conform to

the quality standards” and “demonstrate how this defect or omission renders the study

unreliable”); Knizner v. Bethlehem Mines Corp., 8 BLR 1-5, 1-7 (1985) (physician opinion

based on generalities rather than specifics may be discredited).

Employer also argues the ALJ erred in characterizing Dr. Connelly’s pulmonary

function test as a treatment record and therefore not subject to the quality standards, as

Claimant submitted the test results as an affirmative exhibit rather than as a treatment

record. Employer’s Brief at 10. Employer is correct that, while Claimant designated the

July 22, 2019 pulmonary function study as a treatment record at 20 C.F.R. §725.414(a)(4),

Claimant’s Exhibit 4, he also designated it as one of his affirmative pulmonary function

studies at 20 C.F.R. §725.414(a)(2)(i) on his evidence summary form. Employer thus

identifies, at most, a harmless error. Even if the ALJ were to find the July 22, 2019

7

pulmonary function study invalid if subject to the quality standards, as discussed above,

the pulmonary function study evidence would still weigh in favor of a finding of total

disability as the ALJ permissibly found the November 4, 2022 pulmonary function study

to be valid and gave weight to it. See Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 413 (2009)

(appellant must explain how the alleged “error to which [it] points could have made any

difference”).9

We therefore affirm the ALJ’s finding that the November 4, 2022 pulmonary

function study is valid, and her weighing of the pulmonary function study evidence as a

whole. 20 C.F.R. §718.204(b)(2)(i). Further, we affirm the ALJ’s finding Claimant

established total disability in consideration of the evidence as a whole, 20 C.F.R.

§718.204(b)(2); Rafferty, 9 BLR at 1-232, and therefore invoked the Section 411(c)(4)

presumption. 20 C.F.R. §718.305(b)(1).

9 Employer also argues the ALJ erred in finding “all pulmonary function studies demonstrated – throughout a six-year period – a severe pulmonary impairment,” in spite of the invalidity of the 2018 pulmonary function studies. Employer’s Brief at 7-8. However, Employer fails to identify how any error would have made any difference, given the ALJ’s according probative weight to the November 4, 2022 pulmonary function study, which she permissibly found to be valid. See Shinseki v. Sanders, 556 U.S. 396, 413 (2009) (appellant must explain how the alleged “error to which [it] points could have made any difference”).

8

Rebuttal of the Section 411(c)(4) Presumption

Because Claimant invoked the Section 411(c)(4) presumption, the burden shifted to

Employer to establish Claimant has neither legal nor clinical pneumoconiosis,10 or “no part

of [his] respiratory or pulmonary disability was caused by pneumoconiosis as defined in

[20 C.F.R.] § 718.201.” 20 C.F.R. §718.305(d)(1)(i), (ii). The ALJ found Employer failed

to establish rebuttal by either method.11 Decision and Order at 19-25.

Legal Pneumoconiosis

To disprove legal pneumoconiosis, Employer must establish Claimant does not have

a chronic lung disease or impairment “significantly related to, or substantially aggravated

by, dust exposure in coal mine employment.” 20 C.F.R. §§718.201(a)(2), (b),

718.305(d)(1)(i)(A); see Minich v. Keystone Coal Mining Corp., 25 BLR 1-149, 1-155 n.8

(2015).

The ALJ considered three medical opinions and found Employer failed to meet its

burden. Decision and Order at 23-24. Dr. Barney opined Claimant does not have legal

10 “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). “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).
11 The ALJ found Employer disproved clinical pneumoconiosis.
Decision and
Order at 20-22.

9

pneumoconiosis; he initially determined Claimant has chronic obstructive pulmonary

disease (COPD) due, in part, to coal mine dust exposure, but after reviewing Claimant’s

supplemental pulmonary function test and Dr. Gaziano’s findings that the pulmonary

function studies were not acceptable, Dr. Barney opined Claimant has no evidence of any

disabling chronic lung disease. Director’s Exhibits 11, 20. The ALJ found Dr. Barney’s

opinion entitled to little weight because he did not consider the July 22, 2019 and

November 4, 2022 pulmonary function tests, which may have changed his conclusion on

legal pneumoconiosis. Decision and Order at 23.

Dr. Fino opined Claimant does not have legal pneumoconiosis; he concluded

Claimant has no lung disease or impairment at all. Employer’s Exhibit 2. The ALJ

accorded little weight to Dr. Fino’s opinion because he did not give specific reasons why

any of the individual pulmonary function tests were invalid. Decision and Order at 23-24.

The ALJ also determined Dr. Goldstein did not offer a conclusive opinion as to

whether Claimant has legal pneumoconiosis, and thus found his opinion merited no weight

on the issue. Employer’s Exhibit 1; Decision and Order at 23. As none of the opinions

received probative weight, the ALJ found Employer failed to disprove legal

pneumoconiosis. Decision and Order at 24.

Employer argues the ALJ erred in discrediting Dr. Barney’s opinion based on

“speculation” that he might have changed his opinion had he reviewed the July 22, 2019

10

and November 4, 2022 pulmonary function tests. Employer’s Brief at 11. The ALJ,

however, permissibly discredited Dr. Barney’s opinion as he did not have a complete

picture of Claimant’s pulmonary condition. See Kertesz v. Crescent Hills Coal Co., 788

F.2d 158, 163 (3d. Cir. 1986); Stark v. Director, OWCP, 9 BLR 1-36, 1-37 (1986) (ALJ

may assign less weight to a medical opinion that presents an incomplete picture of the

miner’s health). Employer also argues the ALJ erred in discrediting Dr. Fino’s opinio n

because he did not give specific reasons for the invalidity of any of the pulmonary function

tests of record. Employer’s Brief at 12. However, as discussed above, this was a

permissible credibility determination. See Jones, 386 F.3d at 992; Rowe, 710 F.2d at 255;

Knizner, 8 BLR at 1-7. Employer further argues the ALJ erred in disregarding Dr.

Goldstein’s opinion. We disagree. Given Dr. Goldstein’s conflicting statements, the ALJ

reasonably found the physician’s opinion equivocal on the issue of legal pneumoconiosis.

See Griffith v. Director, OWCP, 49 F.3d 184, 186-87 (6th Cir. 1995); Justice v. Island

Creek Coal Co., 11 BLR 1-91, 1-94 (1988).

Employer’s arguments are 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).

Because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s determination to discredit the opinions of

11

Drs. Barney, Fino, and Goldstein,12 we affirm her finding that Employer did not rebut the

presumed existence of legal pneumoconiosis. 20 C.F.R. §718.305(d)(1)(i)(A).

Employer’s failure to disprove legal pneumoconiosis precludes a rebuttal finding

that Claimant does not have pneumoconiosis. See 20 C.F.R. §718.305(d)(1).

Disability Causation

To disprove disability causation, Employer must establish “no part of [Claimant’s]

respiratory or pulmonary total disability was caused by pneumoconiosis as defined in

[20 C.F.R.] § 718.201.” 20 C.F.R. §718.305(d)(1)(ii). Because the physicians of record

failed to diagnose legal pneumoconiosis, contrary to the ALJ’s finding that Employer failed

12 The ALJ also considered the portion of Dr. Connolly’s black lung evaluation relevant to legal pneumoconiosis as a treatment record. Decision and Order at 24. Dr. Connolly diagnosed a severe restriction with a severe reduction of diffusion capacity. Claimant’s Exhibit 4. Nevertheless, Dr. Connolly attributed Claimant’s impairment entirely to obesity. Id. The ALJ found Dr. Connolly’s opinion was not well documented or reasoned and gave it little weight. Decision and Order at 24. Employer argues the ALJ erred in discrediting Dr. Connolly’s opinion. Employer’s Brief at 12-13. We disagree. The ALJ permissibly discounted Dr. Connolly’s opinion because he failed to discuss Claimant’s coal mine employment and dust exposure as a potential etiology of the restrictive impairment. See U.S. Steel Mining Co. v. Director, OWCP [Jones], 386 F.3d 977, 992 (11th Cir. 2004); Jordan v. Benefits Review Board, 876 F.2d 1455, 1460 (11th Cir. 1989); Taylor v. Ala. By-Products Corp., 862 F.2d 1529, 1531 n.1 (11th Cir. 1989). Moreover, the ALJ noted Dr. Connolly did not review the November 4, 2022 pulmonary function test showing an obstructive impairment and, thus, discredited his opinion for not considering or discussing whether the obstructive impairment represented legal pneumoconiosis. See Kertesz v. Crescent Hills Coal Co., 788 F.2d 158, 163 (3d. Cir. 1986); Stark v. Director, OWCP, 9 BLR 1-36, 1-37 (1986) (ALJ may assign less weight to a medical opinion that presents an incomplete picture of the miner’s health); Decision and Order at 24.
12

to rebut the presumption that Claimant has legal pneumoconiosis, substantial evidence

supports the ALJ’s finding that their disability causation opinions are not credible. See

Oak Grove Res., LLC v. Director, OWCP [Ferguson], 920 F.3d 1283, 1289 (11th Cir.

2019); Hobet Mining, LLC v. Epling, 783 F.3d 498, 504-05 (4th Cir. 2015) (where a

physician erroneously fails to diagnose pneumoconiosis, his opinion as to disability

causation “is not worthy of much, if any, weight”); Decision and Order at 25-26. We

therefore affirm the ALJ’s conclusion that Employer failed to establish no part of

Claimant’s respiratory disability was caused by legal pneumoconiosis. 20 C.F.R.

§718.305(d)(1)(ii).

13

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

GLENN E. ULMER
Acting Administrative Appeals Judge