Cedar Coal Company v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

Cedar Coal · United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · March 6, 2026 · No. 24-1063

Summary

The Fourth Circuit denied Cedar Coal Company’s petition for review of a Benefits Review Board decision awarding Black Lung Benefits Act benefits to Roger L. Mullins’s estate. The court held that a physician’s analysis of pulmonary function tests contained in admissible treatment records did not exceed the regulatory evidentiary limits and concluded that the administrative law judge’s finding of totally disabling legal pneumoconiosis was supported by substantial evidence.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Judge Thacker; Judge Richardson; Senior Judge Keenan
Jurisdiction
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Decision date
March 6, 2026
Docket number
24-1063
Procedural posture
Cedar Coal petitioned for review of a Benefits Review Board order affirming an Administrative Law Judge's award of Black Lung Benefits Act benefits to Roger L. Mullins.
Standard of review
The court reviews the Benefits Review Board's order under the same standard the Board applies to the ALJ's decision: legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, while factual findings are reviewed highly deferentially for substantial evidence. The court defers to the ALJ's resolution and weighing of competing medical opinions and will not reweigh the evidence.
Precedential value
published_precedential
Parties
Cedar Coal Company v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Karen Vena Mullins, on behalf of the Estate of Roger L. Mullins
Disposition
writ_denied

Topics

judicial review of agency actionadministrative lawmining lawevidencestandard of review

Practice areas

administrative lawworkers' compensationmining lawappellate procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a physician's medical report may analyze pulmonary function tests contained in admissible treatment records without converting those tests into affirmative evidence subject to the regulatory limits.
  2. Whether the ALJ's decision to credit the opinions diagnosing legal pneumoconiosis over contrary medical opinions was supported by substantial evidence.
  3. Whether the ALJ's finding that Mullins's legal pneumoconiosis caused his total disability was supported by substantial evidence.

Holdings

  1. A physician may review and interpret pulmonary function tests contained in admissible treatment records when preparing a medical report, and doing so does not transform those tests into affirmative evidence subject to the limits of 20 C.F.R. § 725.414(a)(2)(i).
  2. The ALJ's decision to credit Dr. Go's opinion and discount contrary opinions was supported by substantial evidence and adequately explained; the appellate court will not reweigh competing medical evidence or substitute its judgment for the ALJ's.
  3. The ALJ's finding that Mullins's legal pneumoconiosis caused his total disability was supported by substantial evidence.

Key quotations

Reviewing and interpreting results contained in admissible treatment records to form a medical opinion does not transform those results into affirmative evidence. (at 11)
In arguing to the contrary, Petitioner is, in essence, asking us to reweigh the evidence ourselves. That, we will not and cannot do. (at 12)
Because we conclude that Dr. Go’s medical report did not violate the limitations on affirmative evidence and that the ALJ’s finding of totally disabling legal pneumoconiosis is supported by substantial evidence, the petition for review is DENIED. (at 13)

Factual background

Roger L. Mullins sought Black Lung Benefits Act benefits, alleging total disability from pulmonary disease caused by coal dust. After his initial claim was denied, he requested modification, and the ALJ found him totally disabled due to legal pneumoconiosis and awarded benefits. Mullins submitted affirmative evidence, treatment records, and medical reports, including a report by Dr. Leonard Go that considered pulmonary function tests contained in treatment records. Cedar Coal argued that Dr. Go's report exceeded the regulatory evidence limits and that the finding of legal pneumoconiosis lacked substantial evidentiary support.

Procedural history

Mullins's initial black lung benefits claim was denied. In 2019, he sought modification based on an alleged mistake of fact and a change in conditions. The ALJ granted modification, found Mullins totally disabled due to legal pneumoconiosis, and awarded benefits for which Cedar Coal was responsible. The Benefits Review Board affirmed, and Cedar Coal petitioned the Fourth Circuit for review.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…