Wackenhut Corp. v. Hansen ( 2014 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 26, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
THE WACKENHUT CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v. No. 12-9595
(Petition for Review)
GLORIANNA HANSEN, o/b/o Eldon A.
Hansen, OFFICE OF WORKERS’
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
Respondents.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before MATHESON, Circuit Judge, PORFILIO, Senior Circuit Judge, and
O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge.
The Wackenhut Corporation seeks review of a decision by the United States
Department of Labor Benefits Review Board (Board) affirming an award of black
lung benefits to Eldon Hansen. It contends Hansen is not eligible for benefits
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with
Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
because his work as a security guard did not qualify him as a “miner” under the
Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944 (BLBA). We affirm the award of
benefits.1
I
Hansen worked for Wackenhut as a security officer at several coal mines.2
From 1984 to 1985, his work included patrolling mine-sites, inspecting coal-conveyer
tubes for fire hazards, and ensuring that train-cars were loaded to their proper weight.
From 1985 until 1994, Hansen worked at the Black Thunder Mine, where he spent
25% of his time at the guard-shack and the rest performing other duties outdoors.
The guard-shack was located 100 yards from the primary crusher and 200 yards from
the train load-out facility. Hansen’s duties varied but included admitting mine
supervisors and contractors to the premises, patrolling the mine for safety violations
and trespassers, and walking the open pit looking for coal-fires. Additionally, he was
charged with inspecting mining equipment, checking the operation of water pumps in
the mine pit, and generally looking at the overall safety of the mine.
In 2001, Hansen filed his claim for benefits. An administrative law judge
(ALJ) denied it, finding Hansen not to be a “miner” as defined by the BLBA. The
1
Our jurisdiction derives from 33 U.S.C. § 921(c).
2
Hansen passed away in 2009, during the litigation of this claim. His surviving
spouse, Glorianna Hansen, was added as a party on his behalf.
-2-
Board vacated that decision and remanded to allow the ALJ to explain why some of
Hansen’s duties did not qualify him as a miner.3
On remand, the ALJ reversed course and determined some of Hansen’s work
qualified him as a miner. That came from a consideration of Hansen’s job
description, his testimony, and the testimony of Wackenhut’s branch manager. The
ALJ then compared Hansen’s duties to the job descriptions of a security guard and
mine inspector, as listed in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, observing that the
latter qualifies as a “miner” under Board precedent, see, e.g., Bartley v. Dir., Office
of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 12 Black Lung Rep. (Juris) 1-89, 1988 WL 232708, at
*2 (Ben. Rev. Bd. 1988). Finding sufficient overlap between Hansen’s duties and
those of a mine inspector, the ALJ decided Hansen was eligible for benefits as a
miner because his duties “[were] an integral part of the preparation or extraction of
coal.” Admin. R., Vol. 1 at 89 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Board affirmed the award of benefits; it considered the ALJ’s decision to
be rational, supported by substantial evidence, and in accord with applicable law. In
particular, the Board concluded the ALJ had “acted within his discretion in
determining that [Hansen] performed tasks that, like those of a mine inspector, were
integral to the extraction or preparation of coal, as they ensured the safety of mining
operations.” Id. at 4. Wackenhut now petitions this court for review.
3
Wackenhut attempted to appeal to this court, but we dismissed its petition for
lack of jurisdiction because the remand order was not a final decision. See
Wackenhut Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t Labor, No. 10-9506 (10th Cir. Apr. 23, 2010).
-3-
II
We review legal issues de novo and the ALJ’s factual findings for substantial
evidence. Bridger Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 669 F.3d
1183, 1190 (10th Cir. 2012). We do not reweigh the evidence, but examine only
whether the evidence supports the ALJ’s findings of fact. See Energy W. Mining Co.
v. Oliver, 555 F.3d 1211, 1217 (10th Cir. 2009). In conducting our review, we are
mindful that the BLBA “is intended to be remedial in nature, and doubts should be
resolved in favor of the disabled miner or his or her survivors.” Bridger Coal,
669 F.3d at 1190 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The BLBA defines a miner as “any individual who works or has worked in or
around a coal mine or coal preparation facility in the extraction or preparation of
coal.” 30 U.S.C. § 902(d); see also 20 C.F.R. § 725.202(a). Courts interpret this
definition as a two-part test in which “an individual must establish . . . : (1) [work] in
or around a statutorily defined coal mine (the ‘situs’ test), 30 U.S.C. § 802(h)(2), and
(2) . . . duties involv[ing] the extraction or preparation of coal, or involv[ing]
appropriate coal mine construction or transportation (the ‘function’ test).” Falcon
Coal Co. v. Clemons, 873 F.2d 916, 921 (6th Cir. 1989). Only the second part of the
test is in dispute here.
Under the terms of the BLBA, a claimant’s function must involve the
extraction or preparation of coal. But consistent with the statute’s remedial purpose,
courts have applied a broad definition to the term “miner,” including within its
-4-
meaning workers who perform duties incidental to the extraction or preparation of
coal, so long as their work is “an ‘integral’ or ‘necessary’ part of the coal mining
process.” Id. at 922; see also Amax Coal Co. v. Fagg, 865 F.2d 916, 918 (7th Cir.
1989) (recognizing the broad definition of a “miner” includes workers “involved in
ancillary activities necessary to the extraction or preparation of coal” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Duties necessary to the procurement of coal or keeping
the mine operational satisfy the function test, but duties merely convenient or helpful
to the operation of a mine do not. See Falcon Coal, 873 F.2d at 922-23 (“[T]hose
individuals who handle raw coal or who perform tasks necessary to keep the mine
operational and in repair are generally classified as ‘miners.’”); Freeman v. Califano,
600 F.2d 1057, 1060 (5th Cir. 1979) (recognizing availability of benefits to “those
involved in ancillary activities necessary to the extraction and preparation of coal”).
According to the ALJ, Hansen satisfied the function test because he performed
duties integral to the extraction and preparation of coal. This decision is supported
by substantial evidence. Early in his career, Hansen worked in the “train room,”
where he would summon empty coal train-cars, weigh them, load them, and weigh
them again to ensure they were not overweight. Aplt. App. at 43-44; Admin. R.,
Vol. 2 (Dir. Ex. 4). Since that time, his duties also have included patrolling mine
sites and inspecting coal-conveyor tubes for fire hazards. At the Black Thunder
Mine, where he patrolled on foot and by truck, he would inspect the pit—an active
mining area—every hour looking for fires in the coal. Four times per shift, he would
-5-
inspect the coal-conveyer tubes to ensure there were no fire-hazards from methane or
coal dust build-up. He also would inspect the pit’s water pumps to ensure they were
operating properly and there was no flooding.
Additionally, he inspected shovels, drills, and fire extinguishers, filling as
many as 100 extinguishers in a day, if necessary. He also made certain there were no
fire hazards in any power cables, material was not stored or located in a hazardous
manner, and the railroad tracks were not blocked. Finally, he directed emergency
procedures, was familiar with evacuation routes, and ensured that other guards were
“performing according to the rules and regulations of the mine,” Aplt. App. at 24. As
the ALJ recognized, these tasks were integral to the mine’s safe operation and the
extraction of coal. See Falcon Coal, 873 F.2d at 922-23.4
Of course, there was evidence reflecting Hansen’s role as a security guard.
For example, he patrolled for trespassers and worked at the front gate, checking in
other employees. But these and other similar duties do not negate Hansen’s essential
work in insuring the safe operation of the mine. Wackenhut submitted testimony
from its branch manager suggesting its security guards worked only at the front gate;
the ALJ gave the testimony little weight because the branch manager was at the mine
4
Wackenhut points out that in Falcon Coal, the Sixth Circuit ultimately decided
a night watchman did not satisfy the function test. 873 F.2d at 923. The claimant in
that case performed duties that differed from Hansen’s, however, underscoring the
fact-sensitive nature of the analysis. Indeed, under different circumstances, the Sixth
Circuit has since ruled that a night watchman at a coal mine did satisfy the function
requirement. See Sammons v. EAS Coal Co., No. 92-3030, 1992 WL 348976, at *2
(6th Cir. Nov. 24, 1992) (unpublished).
-6-
twelve years after Hansen had retired. The ALJ’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence.
The petition for review is denied, and the Board’s judgment is affirmed.
Entered for the Court
Terrence L. O’Brien
Circuit Judge
-7-