Consolidation Coal Company v. Terry Shipley ( 2022 )

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 1 of 23
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1738
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
TERRY L. SHIPLEY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (18-0032-BLA)
Argued: September 22, 2021 Decided: February 9, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished opinion. Judge Diaz wrote the opinion, in which Judge
Niemeyer joined. Judge Quattlebaum wrote a dissenting opinion.
ARGUED: Jeffrey Robert Soukup, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for
Petitioner. Sarah Marie Hurley, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Washington, D.C.; Matthew A. Gribler, PAWLOWSKI BILONICK & LONG, Ebensburg,
Pennsylvania, for Respondents. ON BRIEF: Kate S. O’Scannlain, Solicitor of Labor,
Barry H. Joyner, Associate Solicitor, Kevin Lyskowski, Deputy Associate Solicitor, Sean
G. Bajkowski, Office of the Solicitor, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for the Federal Respondent. Heath M. Long, PAWLOWSKI,
BILONICK & LONG, Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, for Respondent Terry L. Shipley.
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 2 of 23
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 3 of 23
DIAZ, Circuit Judge:
Consolidation Coal Company petitions this Court to review an award of black lung
benefits to Terry L. Shipley. An administrative law judge (“ALJ”) twice denied Shipley
benefits, and the Department of Labor’s Benefits Review Board twice remanded. On his
third review, the ALJ presumed that mining coal underground contributed to Shipley’s
disabling lung disease. The ALJ then found that Consolidation failed to rebut the
presumption because its experts—who had found that Shipley’s respiratory symptoms
were attributable to cigarette-smoke exposure and asthma—weren’t credible. The ALJ
awarded Shipley benefits, and the Board affirmed.
We have jurisdiction over petitions for review from the Board’s final decisions
under 33 U.S.C. § 921(c), as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. § 932(a). Because the record is
free of legal error and substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s decision to award benefits,
we deny the petition.
I.
Shipley suffers from totally disabling chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
(“COPD”). He smoked one-half to one pack of cigarettes per day for over 36 years, ending
in 2006. Shipley also worked for over 40 years in the coal mining industry (with over 30
years spent underground), before retiring in 2011. That year, he filed a claim for federal
black lung benefits against his most recent employer, Consolidation. The Director of the
Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs investigated the claim and recommended
3
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 4 of 23
awarding benefits. Consolidation contested this decision and requested a hearing before
an ALJ.
The ALJ twice denied Shipley benefits, and the Board twice remanded. In denying
the claim the first time, the ALJ found that Shipley worked underground as a miner for
over 15 years and had a totally disabling pulmonary impairment, entitling Shipley to a
presumption that his employment contributed to his impairment. See 20 C.F.R. § 718.305.
But the ALJ also found that Consolidation’s experts rebutted the presumption by showing
that Shipley’s employment wasn’t a substantially contributing cause of his disability. On
appeal, the Board agreed with Shipley that Consolidation bore the burden of proving his
employment caused “no part of [his] respiratory or pulmonary total disability.” Id.§ 718.305(d)(1)(ii). Because the ALJ failed to apply this standard, the Board vacated the
denial of benefits and remanded.
On remand, the ALJ again denied benefits. Although the ALJ again presumed that
Shipley’s employment contributed to his impairment, he still credited the testimony of
Consolidation’s two experts—both board-certified doctors with pulmonary specialties—
who stated that smoking and asthma, not coal-dust exposure, caused Shipley’s COPD. 1
Shipley appealed to the Board, claiming the ALJ ignored his argument that
Consolidation’s experts’ views on the cause of Shipley’s impairment conflicted with the
Department of Labor’s regulatory guidance. In broad strokes, the relevant guidance—
1
Shipley’s experts disagreed, stating that both exposure to coal dust and cigarette
smoke contributed to Shipley’s COPD. One of the experts “could not quantify the
comparative contributions” of cigarette smoke and coal dust; the other concluded they were
“each responsible for 50% of his pulmonary obstruction.” J.A. 418, 420.
4
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 5 of 23
specifically, the preamble to the 2000 amendments to the black lung regulations—explains
that, because both inhaling coal dust and smoking cigarettes can diminish lung function,
many measurements can’t differentiate between the two causes. See 65 Fed. Reg. 79,920,
79,939–44; see also Cent. Ohio Coal Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 762
F.3d 483, 491 (6th Cir. 2014) (finding that a doctor’s opinion a lung-function test could
distinguish between COPD caused by inhaling coal dust versus smoking cigarettes
contradicted the preamble). The Board agreed with Shipley, vacated the ALJ’s decision,
and instructed him to consider Shipley’s argument. 2
The ALJ’s third decision awarded Shipley benefits. This time, the ALJ found that
Consolidation failed to rebut the presumption that Shipley’s employment contributed to his
impairment. In doing so, the ALJ declined to credit the opinions of Consolidation’s experts
because, according to the preamble, the respiratory tests the experts relied on can’t
differentiate between lung disease caused by coal dust rather than smoking. 3 Because the
opinions of Consolidation’s experts were “entirely at odds with the preamble and its cited
medical literature,” the ALJ gave them little weight. J.A. 415.
2
We note that the Board had—in its first remand order—drawn the ALJ’s attention
to Shipley’s claim “that the opinions of the [Consolidation’s experts] are contrary to the
science accepted by the Department[ of Labor] in the preamble.” Shipley v. Consolidation
Coal Co., Ben. Rev. Bd. No. 15-0346 BLA, 2016 WL 8260683, at *3 (June 30, 2016) .
3
The result of these tests yields an FEV1/FVC ratio, which measures the fraction of
one’s total breath exhaled in the first second. Consolidation’s experts claimed that “they
can distinguish a coal dust-induced lung disease from a smoking-induced lung disease
based on the FEV1[/FVC] ratio.” J.A. 415. But the preamble rejects this view. See 65
Fed. Reg. at 79,940.
5
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 6 of 23
The ALJ also addressed the views of Shipley’s experts that both coal-dust exposure
and cigarette smoking contributed to Shipley’s COPD. The ALJ viewed their reports as
flawed because they didn’t cite supporting data or literature. Still, he gave these opinions
greater weight. Like Consolidation’s experts, Shipley’s experts were pulmonary
specialists. But unlike Consolidation’s experts, both addressed Shipley’s risk factors that
cut against their conclusion. And, said the ALJ, Shipley’s experts correctly noted that
Consolidation’s experts relied on nonspecific symptoms, cited inapplicable literature, and
discounted the effects of Shipley’s exposure to coal dust. In the end, the ALJ was
persuaded that Consolidation hadn’t met its burden to show that Shipley’s employment
played no part in his disability. Consolidation appealed to the Board, which affirmed the
ALJ’s award.
Consolidation then appealed to this Court, arguing that (1) the Board exceeded its
authority by requiring the ALJ to assess medical evidence against the preamble; and (2)
the ALJ erred in discounting Consolidation’s experts’ opinions and crediting Shipley’s
experts’ opinions.
As explained below, we reject both arguments.
II.
A.
Consolidation first argues that the Board lacked authority to require the ALJ to
assess medical evidence against the preamble because it effectively gave the latter the force
6
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 7 of 23
of law. “We review the legal conclusions of the Board and the ALJ de novo.” Harman
Mining Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 678 F.3d 305, 310 (4th Cir. 2012).
“The Board is authorized to review . . . conclusions of law on which the decision or
order appealed from was based. Such . . . conclusions of law may be set aside only if they
are not, in the judgment of the Board, . . . in accordance with law.” 20 C.F.R. § 802.301(a).
“Those dual requirements frame the scope of the Board’s review.” Joseph Forrester
Trucking v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 987 F.3d 581, 588 (6th Cir. 2021).
The Administrative Procedure Act allows agencies to adopt rules carrying the force
of law. See 5 U.S.C. § 553. But agencies can also publish nonbinding guidance. See Perez
v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n., 575 U.S. 92, 96–97 (2015). The preamble to the 2000 black lung
regulation amendments is nonbinding guidance. See A & E Coal Co. v. Adams, 694 F.3d
798, 801–02 (6th Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, we have said that “the preamble is entirely
consistent with the [Black Lung Benefits] Act and its regulations and simply explains the
scientific and medical basis for the regulations.” Harman, 678 F.3d at 315, n.4. 4
In this case, the Board merely directed the ALJ “to consider [Shipley’s] argument”
about the preamble. Shipley, 2016 WL 8260683, at *3 (emphasis added). It didn’t require
the ALJ to treat the preamble as binding. That the ALJ credited the preamble is beside the
point. The ALJ could have followed the Board’s instructions and yet “refused to defer to
4
The issue in Harman was whether an ALJ could ever reference the preamble. 678
F.3d at 316. We said there that an “ALJ did not need to look to the preamble in assessing
[an expert’s credibility].” Id. at 314. But “[b]ecause the ALJ found [the expert’s] views
conflicted with [the preamble’s] rationale, it was well within her discretion to find [the
expert’s] opinion less persuasive.” Id. at 316.
7
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 8 of 23
the [agency’s] interpretation of the statute contained in the preamble”—so long as he
explained his reasoning. Harman, 678 F.3d at 315 n.4. Because the ALJ had discretion to
reject the opinions of Consolidation’s experts based on the preamble, we find no error in
the Board’s instruction.
The dissent questions whether the Board could properly vacate the ALJ’s second
determination given that ALJ’s aren’t required to address all the parties’ arguments.
Dissenting Op. at 19–21. That’s true, except where “the [ALJ] entirely fails to consider an
important (i.e., material) aspect of the problem.” W. Va. Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis
Fund v. Bell, 781 F. App’x 214, 229 (4th Cir. 2019).
That’s what happened here. Consolidation’s experts provided the sole support for
the ALJ’s conclusion that Shipley’s employment played no role in his disability. The
Board recognized as much, directing the ALJ to weigh the credibility of Consolidation’s
experts “regardless of the weight” of Shipley’s experts. Shipley v. Consolidation Coal Co.,
Ben. Rev. Bd. No. 14-0120 BLA, 2014 WL 4492058, at *3 (Aug. 13, 2014). Because
Consolidation bore the burden of proof, the credibility of its experts was paramount. And
by directing the ALJ to consider the preamble in assessing credibility, the Board thought it
material. The Board’s decision on this point is a question of law that we review de novo.
See Finney v. Colvin, 637 F. App’x 711, 720 (4th Cir. 2016) (King, J., dissenting)
(interpreting “material” under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)); Booz v. Sec’y of Health & Human
Servs., 734 F.2d 1378, 1380 (9th Cir. 1984) (same); see also Westmoreland Coal Co. v.
Sharpe, 692 F.3d 317, 327 (4th Cir. 2012) (Where, as here, “the B[oard] has reversed the
8
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 9 of 23
ALJ, we must review the BRB's decision for errors of law and to ensure the B[oard]'s
decision adhered to its statutory standard of review.” (cleaned up)).
Consistency with the preamble is one aspect of an expert’s credibility in black lung
cases. It informs an ALJ’s analysis of experts’ “medical findings, the documentation
underlying their medical judgments, and the sophistication of and bases for their
conclusion.” Shipley, 2014 WL 4492058, at *3. Here, the credibility of Consolidation’s
experts is nearly dispositive, and the experts admit that their opinions conflict with the
medical literature incorporated into the preamble. Thus, the preamble was material, and
the Board properly directed the ALJ to consider it.
We don’t mean to suggest that all arguments related to the preamble are material;
they may be material in some cases and immaterial in others. But that an ALJ need not
consider the preamble in every case doesn’t render it immaterial in all cases. If it did, an
ALJ could ignore a party’s preamble argument with impunity. That’s not the law.
B.
Next, Consolidation contends the ALJ erred in discounting its experts’ opinions and
crediting Shipley’s. Credibility determinations are factual findings, which we review for
substantial evidence. Harman, 678 F.3d at 310. Substantial evidence is “such relevant
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol.
Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). “We must sustain the [agency’s] decision,
even if we disagree with it, provided the determination is supported by substantial
evidence.” Smith v. Chater, 99 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 1996).
9
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 10 of 23
Here, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision not to credit Consolidation’s experts,
who “attributed claimant’s obstructive impairment entirely to the effects of cigarette smoke
exposure and asthma.” Shipley v. Consolidation Coal Co., Ben. Rev. Bd. No. 18-0032
BLA, 2019 WL 2462923, at *3 (May 14, 2019). The Board concluded that “[i]n light of
the medical science found credible in the preamble finding the effects of smoking and coal
dust exposure are additive, the [ALJ] permissibly found that neither [of Consolidation’s
experts] adequately explained why [Shipley’s] more than forty years of coal mine dust
exposure did not significantly contribute, along with these other factors, to his
impairment.” Id.We agree with the Board. Reasonable minds could accept the tension between the
preamble and the opinions of Consolidation’s experts as adequate to discount those
opinions. And because the employer has the burden of rebutting the 15-year presumption
once properly invoked, 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(d), the ALJ’s ultimate finding that
Consolidation failed to do so is supported by substantial evidence.
For that reason, we—unlike our colleague in dissent—are not troubled by the ALJ’s
decision to award benefits following the second remand. The ALJ need not establish “that
the reasons for the new [determination] are better than the reasons for the old one; it
suffices that the new [determination] is permissible under the statute.” FCC v. Fox
Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009). And there is no “unexplained
10
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 11 of 23
inconsistency” because the preamble justifies the ALJ’s decision to award benefits. See
Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 924 F.3d 684, 704 (4th Cir. 2019). 5
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
5
Given our holding, we need not reach Consolidation’s claim that the ALJ erred in
crediting the opinions of Shipley’s experts.
11
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 12 of 23
QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
The Black Lung Benefits Act provides a framework for coal industry workers and
their survivors to assert claims for disability or death benefits caused by exposure to coal
dust in the course of their employment. That framework, especially for a claimant like
Shipley who worked over fifteen years in coal mines, is quite favorable. If the claimant has
lung disease, coal is presumed to be the cause, or at least a contributing factor, entitling the
claimant to recover unless the employer can rebut that presumption by proving coal dust
neither caused nor contributed to the disease. But while the framework favors the claimant,
it does not guarantee recovery.
In a case like the one presented here, where each party’s experts presented
competing theories explaining what caused or contributed to Shipley’s lung disease, the
ALJ may side with the employer so long as its experts offer substantial evidence and are
not contrary to law. If those two requirements are met, the Board has no authority to
consider other issues. Accordingly, the Board was not permitted to vacate the ALJ’s
opinion and require him to consider whether the opinions of Consolidation’s experts were
inconsistent with the Black Lung Benefits Act’s regulatory preamble (“Preamble”) when,
under Fourth Circuit law, that issue did not have to be considered.
I.
I first briefly restate the factual and procedural history. Shipley sought benefits
under the Black Lung Benefits Act for pneumoconiosis, which is commonly referred to as
12
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 13 of 23
black lung disease. There is no question he suffered from lung disease. No one disputes
that. The question is what caused it.
Shipley claims that exposure to coal dust from his 40-plus years of employment in
coal mines caused or contributed to his lung disease. And the Act gives him a head start in
advancing that claim. Since Shipley worked over fifteen years in coal mines, the Act
presumes that coal dust caused his lung disease. That statutory presumption can be
overcome. But to do so, Consolidation must show that coal dust had no role in Shipley’s
lung disease. Consolidation insists it has rebutted the presumption. It argues the record
establishes that Shipley’s years of smoking, not his exposure to coal dust, caused his lung
disease and further that coal dust did not contribute to it. Both parties retained experts who
issued reports and testified in support of their client’s positions. Thus, the proceedings
boiled down in large part to a battle of experts.
The ALJ’s first opinion sided with Consolidation’s experts. But there the ALJ
applied the incorrect legal standard. Thus, the Board’s first order properly vacated that
opinion and remanded the matter.
The ALJ once again decided in favor of Consolidation. He issued a thorough,
thirteen-page opinion finding that Consolidation’s experts rebutted the Act’s presumption
of coal dust-induced lung disease. This second ALJ opinion first described what
Consolidation’s experts articulated and then provided detailed, evidence-based reasons for
crediting them. The ALJ was persuaded by the experts’ reasoning, the documentation of
their opinions and their assessment of diagnostic tests and Shipley’s medical records.
13
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 14 of 23
But the ALJ did not stop there. He then considered the opinions of Shipley’s experts,
describing them and explaining his reasons for not crediting them. Like the assessment of
the opinions of Consolidation’s experts, the ALJ’s assessment of the opinions of Shipley’s
experts was detailed and extensive. He identified specific reasons Shipley’s experts were
not credible, including the absence of any specific evidence coal dust caused or contributed
to Shipley’s lung disease besides mere exposure and the fact that only a small percentage
of coal miners contract coal dust-induced lung disease.
Then, after considering both parties’ experts, the ALJ concluded that Consolidation
had rebutted the Act’s presumption of coal dust-induced lung disease. The ALJ explained:
Having considered all of the relevant medical opinion evidence, the
undersigned finds that Employer has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
evidence that no part of Claimant’s respiratory or pulmonary total disability
was caused by pneumoconiosis. As discussed supra, the opinions of Drs.
Basheda and Bellotte carry substantial weight and demonstrate that
pneumoconiosis did not play any part in causing Claimant’s total disability.
Conversely, the reports of Drs. . . . Schaaf[] and Begley contend that
pneumoconiosis caused or contributed to Claimant’s totally disabling
respiratory or pulmonary impairment. The undersigned has found, however,
that these reports are not persuasive and not entitled to significant weight.
Because Drs. Basheda and Bellotte offer the most credible and persuasive
opinions and found that no part of Claimant’s respiratory or pulmonary total
disability was caused by pneumoconiosis, the undersigned finds that
Employer has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that
Claimant’s pneumoconiosis played “no part” in causing his totally disabling
respiratory or pulmonary impairment. Employer has thus rebutted the
presumption that Claimant’s totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary
impairment was caused by pneumoconiosis. Accordingly, Claimant is not
entitled to benefits under the Act.
J.A. 392.
After Shipley appealed, the Board vacated the ALJ’s second opinion. This second
Board order chastised the ALJ for not following its instructions in its prior order to consider
14
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 15 of 23
one of Shipley’s arguments—that Consolidation’s expert’s opinions improperly
contradicted the scientific information in the Preamble. 1 The Board remanded the case to
the ALJ to consider Shipley’s Preamble argument.
After his second opinion was vacated, the ALJ succumbed. After twice finding that
Consolidation’s experts were reasonable and Shipley’s were not, the ALJ, in his third
opinion, came to the opposite conclusion. The ALJ said that the opinions of
Consolidation’s experts—that he previously said were well-reasoned, well-documented,
based on diagnostic tests, based on medical records, credible and entitled to substantial
weight—were now discredited and not entitled to significant or substantial weight. The
ALJ also said that the opinions of Shipley’s experts—the ones that he previously said were
not persuasive, were not well-reasoned or well-documented, relied on no evidence other
than the fact that Shipley was exposed to coal dust, were not credible and were entitled to
little weight—were now credible, well-documented and well-reasoned. The ALJ thus ruled
that Shipley’s lung disease was coal dust induced and such awarded him benefits under the
Black Lung Benefits Act. Following Consolidation’s appeal, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s
decision. Consolidation appealed the Board’s decision.
1
I question whether the Board’s instructions were so clear in the first place. It turns
out, the first Board order’s only reference to Shipley’s Preamble argument was in a footnote
where it said: “We leave these arguments for the administrative law judge to consider on
remand.” J.A. 380 n.5.
15
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 16 of 23
II.
Consolidation’s appeal involves two primary arguments. First, it claims that the
Board had no authority to vacate and remand the ALJ’s second opinion. Second,
Consolidation contends that even if the Board’s second order was not improper, the Board
erred in affirming the ALJ’s third opinion because that opinion is irrational, not supported
by substantial evidence and contrary to law. If Consolidation prevails on either issue, the
Board’s decision must be vacated.
A.
Consolidation’s first argument challenges the Board’s second order, which vacated
and remanded the ALJ’s second opinion. The Board did so because, according to the Board,
the ALJ failed to follow the Board’s instructions to address Shipley’s argument that the
opinions of Consolidation’s experts contradicted the science contained in the Preamble.
The Board thus ordered the ALJ to consider Shipley’s Preamble argument.
1.
At first blush, the Board’s order sounds innocent enough. An order of remand to
consider an argument that was not addressed in an administrative judge’s decision hardly
is unusual. Generally, when a reviewing authority of an agency disagrees with the ALJ,
“the agency has all the powers which it would have in making the initial decision except
as it may limit the issues on notice or by rule.” 5 U.S.C. § 557(b); see also Universal
Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 492 (1951) (rejecting the contention that the
National Labor Relations Board can reverse ALJ findings only when they are clearly
16
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 17 of 23
erroneous). Presumably, that would include the power to require a certain issue to be
addressed.
But proceedings under the Black Lung Benefits Act operate differently from those
governed by general agency law. Under the Act and its corresponding regulations, the
Board’s scope of review is limited. “[The ALJ’s] findings of fact and conclusions of law
may be set aside only if they are not, in the judgment of the Board, supported by substantial
evidence in the record considered as a whole or in accordance with law.” 20 C.F.R.
§ 802.301(a); see also 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(3) (discussing how the Board should affirm the
ALJ’s factual findings “if supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a
whole”), as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. § 932(a). See generally 4 Arthur Larson, Larson’s
Workers’ Compensation Law § 54.08[4] (2021); Jeffrey B. Litwak, A Guide to Federal
Agency Adjudication 118 (2d ed. 2012). Faithful adherence to that limited scope of review
leaves no room for remand if an ALJ’s opinion is supported by substantial evidence and is
not contrary to applicable law.
Further, our review is also slightly different in the Black Lung Benefits Act context.
“It is whether the court of appeals believes that the administrative law judge’s decision was
supported by substantial evidence; if it was, then the Benefits Review Board’s decision
reversing the administrative law judge must itself be reversed, even if that decision could
also be said to be supported by substantial evidence.” Old Ben Coal Co. v. Prewitt, 755
F.2d 588, 589 (7th Cir. 1985) (emphases in original). “The Fourth Circuit once rejected
this standard, believing that the issue should be whether the Benefit Review Board’s
decision, not the administrative law judge’s decision, is supported by substantial evidence;
17
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 18 of 23
but it has now lined up with the other circuits.” Id. at 589–90 (citing Wilson v. Benefits
Review Board, 748 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1984)); see also Wilson, 748 F.2d at 199 (“The
issues on this appeal are whether there was substantial evidence to support the ALJ’s
decision . . . .”).
Accordingly, we review the ALJ’s factual findings—not the Board’s—for
substantial evidence. Relatedly, if the ALJ’s factual findings meet the substantial evidence
standard but the Board disagrees, we should reject the Board’s decision for exceeding its
statutory standard of review. See Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Sharpe ex rel. Sharpe, 692
F.3d 317, 327 (4th Cir. 2012) (“Where the BRB [Benefits Review Board] has reversed the
ALJ, we must ‘review the BRB’s decision for errors of law and to ensure the BRB’s
decision adhered to its statutory standard of review.’”); Boyd & Stevenson Coal Co. v. Dir.,
Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 407 F.3d 663, 666 (4th Cir. 2005) (“In reviewing a
decision of the Benefits Review Board, our review is governed by the same standard the
Board applies when reviewing an ALJ’s decision. Factual determination will be upheld if
the record contains ‘substantial evidence’ supporting the ALJ’s decision. We review
conclusions of law de novo.” (internal citations omitted)).
Regarding “substantial evidence,” it is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Stallard, 876
F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197,
217 (1938)). “We defer to the ALJ’s determination regarding the proper weight to be
accorded competing medical evidence, and we ‘must be careful not to substitute our
judgment for that of the ALJ.’” W. Virginia CWP Fund v. Bender, 782 F.3d 129, 144 (4th
18
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 19 of 23
Cir. 2015) (quoting Harman Mining Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 678
F.3d 305, 310 (4th Cir. 2012)).
2.
With those principles in mind, I return to the Board’s second order. Consolidation
argues that the Board lacked the power to remand with the instructions discussed above. It
points out the well-settled law that an ALJ need not address every argument advanced by
the parties before it. See, e.g., Doolin Sec. Sav. Bank, F.S.B. v. FDIC, 53 F.3d 1395, 1409
(4th Cir. 1995); W. Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund v. Bell, 781 F. App’x
214, 229 (4th Cir. 2019). Consolidation then highlights our Harman decision, which
provides that an ALJ is permitted to consider the Act’s Preamble but is not required to do
so. Harman Mining Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 678 F.3d 305, 315–
16 (4th Cir. 2012). If an ALJ need not address every argument the parties advance, and if
an ALJ need not consider the Preamble, according to Consolidation, the Board’s order that
it do so is beyond its scope of review.
In response, Shipley argues the Board’s order was proper. First, he clarifies that the
Board did not require the ALJ to follow the Act’s Preamble. It merely ordered the ALJ to
consider it. Second, he points out that, under the Administrative Procedure Act, an ALJ’s
decision must include a statement of “findings and conclusions, and the reasons or basis
therefor, on all the material issues of fact, law, or discretion presented on the record.” 5
U.S.C. § 557(c)(3)(A). Shipley further contends that the Preamble, at minimum is a
“material” issue requiring it to be considered. Thus, Shipley concludes the Board acted
19
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 20 of 23
well within its authority to vacate the ALJ’s second opinion and remand the matter for
consideration of the Preamble argument.
Other circuit courts have pointed out the role of scientific information in preambles
and discussed how preambles are at least persuasive and can be instructive. See, e.g.,
Ramos v. Baldor Specialty Foods, Inc., 687 F.3d 554, 561 (2d Cir. 2012) (discussing the
non-binding but persuasive value of regulatory preambles “because it rests on a ‘body of
experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for
guidance’”); Blue Mountain Energy v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, U.S. Dep’t
of Lab., 805 F.3d 1254, 1261 (10th Cir. 2015) (“In sum, we view the preamble as a
scientific primer that helps explain why the agency amended the regulation to add ‘legal
pneumoconiosis’ to the definition of ‘pneumoconiosis.’”). But those decisions do not go to
the heart of the issue presented to us. Our question is whether the ALJ must consider the
Preamble, and, if not, whether the Board would have the authority to remand the ALJ’s
opinion with the specific instruction to consider it.
Even though authority on the issue before us is sparse, the text of the applicable
statutes and regulations compel reversal of the Board’s second order. As a starting matter,
§ 557(c)(3)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act is unhelpful to Shipley’s position.
Sure, that section requires the ALJ decision to discuss all “material issues of fact, law, or
discretion.” 5 U.S.C. § 557(c)(3)(A). But how can an issue that we have said does not have
to be considered be material? How can it be improper for the ALJ not to address Shipley’s
argument about the Preamble when we previously said in Harman the Preamble does not
have to be addressed?
20
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 21 of 23
Instead, 20 C.F.R. § 802.301(a) should guide our review. Under it, “[the ALJ’s]
findings of fact and conclusions of law may be set aside only if they are not, in the judgment
of the Board, supported by substantial evidence in the record considered as a whole or in
accordance with law.” The Board did not find that the ALJ’s second opinion was
unsupported by substantial evidence or not in accord with applicable law. Instead, the
Board vacated an opinion supported by substantial evidence and in accord with the law to
require the ALJ to address an issue that, by law, it did not have to address. Such action by
the Board is not allowed under the Black Lung Benefits Act and its regulations. For that
reason, the Board erred in vacating the ALJ’s second decision; the second ALJ opinion
should have been affirmed.
B.
In its second argument, Consolidation contends that, even if the Board’s second
order was not improper, the Board erred in affirming the ALJ’s third opinion because that
opinion is irrational, not supported by substantial evidence and contrary to law.
Consolidation argues the opinion is irrational and not supported by substantial evidence
because it reaches the exact opposite result about the persuasiveness and credibility of the
experts as compared to the ALJ’s earlier opinions, without any explanation—much less a
reasonable one—as to the flip. And it further argues the ALJ’s conclusion that the opinions
of Consolidation’s experts were contrary to the Preamble are erroneous as a matter of law.
If I were to analyze the ALJ’s third opinion in a vacuum, I would likely agree that
the ALJ’s conclusions were backed by substantial evidence. But the third ALJ opinion does
not come to us in a vacuum. After twice finding that Consolidation’s experts were
21
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 22 of 23
reasonable and Shipley’s were not, the ALJ, in his third opinion, performed a remarkable
about-face. Earlier, the ALJ said Consolidation’s expert opinions were well-reasoned,
well-documented, based on diagnostic tests, based on medical records, credible and entitled
to substantial weight. Not anymore. Earlier, Shipley’s expert opinions were not persuasive,
were not well-reasoned or well-documented, relied on no evidence other than the fact that
Shipley was exposed to coal dust, were not credible and were entitled to little weight. Not
anymore. It is like a witness said one day the light was red and the next day he says the
light was green.
At best, the only thing that changed was the ALJ’s consideration of the Preamble.
But the Preamble discusses the general idea that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can
be detected by decreases in either the FEV1 or the FEV1/FVC ratio. See 65 Fed. Reg.
79,938, 79,943 (Dec. 20, 2000). And as Consolidation rightfully contends, its experts never
contested this issue; in fact, they admitted so. Instead, Consolidation’s experts opined that
the degree and nature of the decreases were consistent with smoking-induced lung disease
and inconsistent with coal dust-induced lung disease, which the Preamble is wholly silent
on. Thus, the Preamble could not be the basis for the ALJ changing his mind.
So, was the ALJ required to explain his striking flip flop? Generally, an agency is
only required to adequately explain its current position—not explain why it switched from
a previous one. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515–16 (2009). At
the same time, we have held that an “unexplained inconsistency” in policy can be arbitrary
and capricious. See, e.g., Casa De Maryland v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
924 F.3d 684, 703–04 (4th Cir. 2019); Jimenez-Cedillo v. Sessions, 885 F.3d 292, 297–98
22
USCA4 Appeal: 19-1738 Doc: 59 Filed: 02/09/2022 Pg: 23 of 23
(4th Cir. 2018) (citing Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 222 (2016)). 2 But
since I conclude that Consolidation should prevail on its argument concerning the ALJ’s
second opinion, the tricky question of which of these two principles of administrative law
applies here can wait for another day.
III.
In my view, the Board exceeded its statutory and regulatory scope of review in
issuing the second order. The ALJ’s second opinion was supported by substantial evidence
and was not based on legal error, and therefore it should have been affirmed. The Board
had no authority to direct the ALJ to consider an argument that our precedent previously
stated is not required to consider. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
2
To be fair, our case law has primarily been in the context of rulemaking rather than
adjudicatory decisionmaking that was involved here. But there is reason to believe that
would not make a difference. See, e.g., U.S. Postal Serv. v. Postal Regul. Comm’n, 785
F.3d 740, 755 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (“[I]f an action is subject to review under the APA, it does
not matter whether it is a formal or informal adjudication or a formal or informal
rulemaking proceeding—all are subject to arbitrary and capricious review under Section
706(2)(A).” (quoting Harry T. Edwards & Linda A. Elliott, Federal Standards of Review
203 (2d ed. 2013))); see also Allentown Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359,
374 (1998) (“[A]djudication is subject to the requirement of reasoned decisionmaking as
well.”); Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 285
(1974) (applying arbitrary and capricious review to a formal adjudication).
23