Summary
The Supreme Court considered whether a claimant seeking black lung benefits under the interim regulations in 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(a) automatically invokes the interim presumption by presenting a single item of qualifying medical evidence. The Court held that the claimant must establish one of the qualifying medical requirements by a preponderance of the evidence, while allowing the factfinder to weigh conflicting evidence. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and remanded for further proceedings.
Holdings
- A claimant does not automatically invoke the interim presumption merely by presenting one item of qualifying evidence. The claimant must establish at least one qualifying medical fact under 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(a) by a preponderance of the evidence, allowing the factfinder to weigh conflicting evidence of the relevant type.
- The regulation does not require all relevant medical evidence to be considered only during rebuttal. Relevant evidence may be considered at some point during the proof process, including during the invocation stage.
- A single negative X-ray interpretation may not alone establish that the claimant failed to carry the invocation burden or rebut the presumption, but conflicting X-ray evidence may be weighed together by the administrative factfinder.
Questions Presented
- Whether a single item of qualifying medical evidence automatically invokes the interim presumption of eligibility under 20 C.F.R. § 727.203(a).
- Whether the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of § 727.203 requires a claimant to establish at least one qualifying medical fact by a preponderance of the evidence before the presumption is invoked.
- Whether the regulation's requirement that all relevant medical evidence be considered permits relevant evidence to be weighed during the invocation stage rather than exclusively during rebuttal.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (15)
- Stapleton v. Westmoreland Coal Co., 785 F.2d 424 (4th Cir. 1986) (en banc)(rejected)
- Cook v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, 816 F.2d 1182, 1185 (7th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 (1945)(followed)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983)(cited)
- Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 28-32 (1976)(followed)
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 695-696 (1974)(distinguished)
- Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Turnipseed, 219 U.S. 35, 43 (1910)(cited)
- Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 156 (1979)(cited)
- Consolidation Coal Co. v. Chubb, 741 F.2d 968, 971 n.2 (7th Cir. 1984)(cited)
- Meadows v. Westmoreland Coal Co., 6 BLR 1-773, 1-779 (Ben. Rev. Bd. 1984)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…