Paul D. Clark v. Crown Construction Company v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Party-in-Interest

Paul D. Clark v. Crown Construction Co., 887 F.2d 149 (8th Cir. 1989) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · December 7, 1989 · No. No. 88-2275

Summary

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the Benefits Review Board's denial of Paul D. Clark's claim for black lung benefits based on his work loading and hauling coal. The court held that it had jurisdiction under the judicial-review provisions of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act as incorporated into the Black Lung Benefits Act. Applying a deferential substantial-evidence standard, the court concluded that the administrative law judge's finding that Clark did not have pneumoconiosis was adequately supported.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Edward Dumbauld, Senior District Judge, sitting by designation; Fagg, Circuit Judge; Beam, Circuit Judge; Dumbauld, Senior District Judge, sitting by designation
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
December 7, 1989
Docket number
No. 88-2275
Procedural posture
Clark petitioned for review of a Benefits Review Board decision affirming an administrative law judge's denial of his claim for black lung benefits.
Standard of review
The court reviews whether the Benefits Review Board properly adhered to its statutory standard of review. The ALJ's factual findings must be supported by substantial evidence and consistent with law; the reviewing court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder.
Precedential value
Published federal appellate decision; precedential within the Eighth Circuit subject to subsequent treatment.
Parties
Paul D. Clark v. Crown Construction Company
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

workers compensationjudicial review of agency actionappellate jurisdictionadministrative lawstatutory interpretation

Practice areas

administrative lawworkers compensationemployment lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Eighth Circuit had jurisdiction to review a Benefits Review Board decision in a Part C Title IV black lung benefits case.
  2. Whether the 1972 amendments to the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act governed the procedures for adjudicating and reviewing black lung claims through dynamic incorporation into the Black Lung Benefits Act.
  3. Whether Clark was required to file his claim with the Arkansas workers' compensation commission under 30 U.S.C. § 931(a).
  4. Whether the ALJ's finding that Clark did not have pneumoconiosis was supported by substantial evidence and whether the Benefits Review Board properly applied its standard of review.

Holdings

  1. The Eighth Circuit and the Benefits Review Board have jurisdiction to review Part C Title IV black lung benefits cases under 33 U.S.C. § 921(c), as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. § 932(a).
  2. The requirement that Clark file his claim with the Arkansas workers' compensation commission did not apply because the Secretary of Labor had never listed a state workers' compensation law as providing adequate benefits under 30 U.S.C. § 931(b).
  3. The ALJ's finding that Clark did not have pneumoconiosis was supported by substantial evidence and was not contrary to law; the Benefits Review Board therefore properly affirmed the denial of benefits.

Key quotations

In other words, the 1969 Act's reference to the Longshoremen's Act was a "general" rather than a "specific" reference. It envisaged a systematic structure rather than an isolated statutory fragment, a forest rather than a single tree, a tree rather than a single leaf. (at 153)
What has been established may be succinctly summarized by saying that this Court has jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. Sec. 921(c) as incorporated by 30 U.S.C. Sec. 932(a). (at 154)
The scope of review of an ALJ's decision is limited. The ALJ's findings of fact may be set aside by the Benefits Review Board only if they are not supported by substantial evidence. (at 155)

Factual background

Clark worked in and around a coal mine, principally as a truck driver, loading and hauling coal. His work was largely outdoors, and his direct exposure to coal dust occurred primarily while loading or unloading the truck. Medical evidence was conflicting, but physicians testified that Clark lacked the obstructive lung abnormalities characteristic of pneumoconiosis and instead had restrictive lung disease.

Procedural history

Clark filed a black lung benefits claim based on work as a truck driver loading and hauling coal. An administrative law judge denied the claim after finding that Clark did not have pneumoconiosis, and the Benefits Review Board affirmed. The Eighth Circuit reviewed the Board's decision and affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…