Ernest F. Hanna v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
Docket: 88-3071
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; October 25, 1988; Federal Appellate Court
The case revolves around Ernest F. Hanna's eligibility for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act of 1977. The primary issue is whether Hanna qualifies as a "miner" given his work as a deckhand, fireman, and engineer on coal tugs that transported coal from mines to steel mills. The court interprets the statutory language to define "loading" coal as an activity that qualifies an individual as a miner. Hanna worked for Jones and Laughlin Steel Company between 1926 and 1930 and again from 1936 to 1969, transporting coal from the mines to the mills, assisting in the loading of coal barges, and remaining at the mines for several hours daily. After being diagnosed with pneumoconiosis in 1978, Hanna filed a claim for benefits, which was initially denied by the Department of Labor on the basis that he was not considered a miner. Following a formal hearing with the ALJ, the case has been remanded for further proceedings consistent with the court's interpretation that Hanna's loading activities qualify him as a miner under the Act.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) determined that Hanna's work at loading sites qualified as coal mine transportation, exposing him to coal dust, thus classifying him as a miner eligible for benefits under the Act. The ALJ remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner for further findings on the duration of Hanna's coal mine employment, the relationship between his pneumoconiosis and that employment, his total disability status, and whether he had dependents for augmented benefits. Following the remand, the Deputy Commissioner gathered evidence, leading to a second hearing in October 1984. In April 1985, the ALJ awarded benefits to Hanna, confirming he had 36 years of qualifying employment as a miner and was totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis contracted while working on coal barges. The ALJ ordered benefits to commence from August 1, 1978, including augmentation for one dependent.
The Director sought reconsideration, arguing that Hanna's role on coal tugs did not qualify him as a miner under the Act since his work contributed only to coal delivery, not production. The ALJ agreed with the Director, vacating both his previous decisions. Hanna appealed to the Benefits Review Board, which upheld the ALJ's reconsideration decision. Hanna now contests the Board's order, which the reviewing court finds to be erroneous, leading to a decision to set aside the Board's order and remand the case back to the ALJ for further action consistent with this opinion.
The definition of "miner" includes two critical elements: a "situs" test, which requires work in or around a coal mine or preparation facility, and a "function" component, requiring involvement in coal extraction or preparation. Both elements must be satisfied for eligibility under the Black Lung Act, as established in case law (e.g., Wisor v. Director, OWCP). The Act defines a "miner" as anyone working in coal extraction, preparation, construction, or transportation around a coal mine, particularly if exposed to coal dust.
In this case, the Director acknowledges that Hanna worked at coal mine sites and was exposed to coal dust. However, the Director argues that Hanna's job fails to meet the "function" requirement, asserting that eligibility necessitates proving both elements. Hanna contends that his work loading coal qualifies under the Act, citing the definitions within the Act that encompass preparation activities.
The Director counters that Hanna's work relates solely to the transportation of coal within commerce, referencing guidelines that limit the definition of transportation to activities occurring before coal enters the stream of commerce. The Director further supports this position with case law, asserting that workers engaged in coal transportation to consumers do not qualify as "miners," as they deal only with a finished product in commerce.
The court defers to the Director's interpretation of the statute but disagrees with his conclusion that Hanna's work of loading coal at the mine site was not part of the stream of commerce. Although Hanna's employer was both the mine owner and the ultimate consumer of the coal, the court emphasizes that the nature of Hanna's work, rather than his employer, determines entitlement under the Act. The court acknowledges the complexity in defining eligibility for benefits under the Act, which does not cover all workers exposed to coal dust.
The Director argues that loading coal from the processing tipple marks the completion of coal preparation and the beginning of its entry into commerce. However, the court disputes this, asserting that removing coal from the tipple is a necessary final step in preparing it for transport. The court references prior case law, including Collins, which establishes the tipple as a demarcation point, but also cites Sexton, where shoveling coal from the tipple was deemed part of coal preparation under the statute.
The court clarifies that its previous decision in Stroh is not in conflict with its current ruling. In Stroh, the court determined that a self-employed hauler was a miner because he transported coal from the mine to a processing plant. If he had merely delivered fully processed coal to consumers, he would not qualify as a miner, as that would only facilitate the introduction of a finished product into commerce.
Hanna's employment with the mining company involved loading coal from the tipple onto barges, a task that qualifies as "work of preparing the coal" under the Black Lung Act, making him a miner as defined by the Act. Section 802(i) explicitly states that "loading" coal is part of preparation. The court determined that the coal was not considered to be in the stream of commerce until it was loaded onto the barges. Consequently, Hanna is entitled to benefits under the Black Lung Act.
The court's analysis highlighted Hanna's essential role in ensuring coal did not fall into the river during loading, thus reinforcing the necessity of his presence and participation at the site. It was noted that Hanna faced significant exposure to coal dust during his work, contributing to his pneumoconiosis, which is linked to coal dust exposure. Prior rulings clarified that another party, J.L., was not liable for benefits.
The court has jurisdiction under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, allowing for review of the Benefits Review Board's decisions. The court's evaluation of the Board's interpretation of the Act is conducted with plenary review. The loading operation was deemed incomplete until the last processed coal was loaded onto the barge, aligning with the notion that the task is not finished until all coal is secured, as expressed in a quote attributed to Yogi Berra. The court remanded the case to the ALJ for further proceedings consistent with its findings.
