R&H Steel Buildings, Inc. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

Citation: 146 F.3d 514Docket: No. 97-3409

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; June 16, 1998; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

R&H Steel Buildings, Inc. is subject to the Black Lung Benefits Act due to its construction work at coal mine sites, despite not being a coal mining company. The Benefits Review Board determined that R&H must reimburse benefits paid to Rudolph Seibert by the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. R&H's appeal centers on two primary issues: whether Seibert's disability resulted from pneumoconiosis and whether he qualifies as a 'miner' under the Act, given his status as a construction worker during his employment with R&H. The appeal is based on the Board's affirmation of an administrative law judge's (ALJ) decisions.

The case has a lengthy procedural history, starting with Seibert's claim filed in 1974, which faced multiple denials and remands before benefits were eventually awarded. Following Seibert's death in 1992, his wife, and later his daughter, continued pursuing the claim. The current appeal addresses R&H's responsibility to pay benefits due to the timing of Seibert's employment and the regulatory framework of the Act. Since Seibert worked for other companies as a miner prior to 1969, R&H is the only employer liable for payments after that date, contingent upon Seibert having worked for them for at least one year. 

The relevant regulations indicate that one year of employment may consist of either a continuous or cumulative period across different employment stints. The 1977 amendments to the Act allow construction workers to be classified as miners if they worked in or around coal mines and were exposed to coal dust. Thus, the court must determine if there is substantial evidence to support that Seibert was a miner and that he worked for R&H for the requisite duration.

20 C.F.R. 725.202(a) establishes a rebuttable presumption that coal mine construction workers were exposed to coal mine dust during their employment at or around coal mines or preparation facilities, which is relevant for determining the liable coal mine operator for benefits under 725.498. This presumption can be challenged by proving either that the individual was not regularly exposed to coal dust or was not regularly employed in such locations. If a worker cannot establish a rebuttal for at least one year, the operator (in this case, R.H.) is liable for any awarded benefits.

Seibert, a traditional coal miner from 1935 to 1955, worked non-mining jobs until 1975 when he joined R.H. Steel Buildings, focusing on coal mine construction until 1981. The central issue is the duration of his exposure to coal dust during this latter employment. Evidence presented included Seibert's testimony and statements from R.H. officials. R.H.'s president, John Rednour, indicated in a 1980 letter that Seibert was not exposed to coal dust during his employment, as their projects primarily involved new construction away from mining operations. 

During a June 1986 hearing, Douglas W. Higgerson, a co-owner of R.H., confirmed that Seibert was generally not exposed to coal dust, although he acknowledged the possibility of brief exposures. Seibert claimed exposure at specific work sites near operational coal mines, including the Freeman United Coal’s Crown #2 Mine, Old Ben Coal Company’s Mine #24, and Inland Steel Coal Company’s Mine #2, while Higgerson disputed some of these claims, stating distances and conditions that suggested no exposure. Rednour confirmed Seibert’s work at Old Ben’s Mine for 52.5 days, but Higgerson contested the proximity to coal dust. Seibert maintained he experienced coal dust exposure, particularly from a preparation plant located near his work site at Inland Steel.

Rednour's letter confirms Seibert's employment for 145 days at various coal mine sites, including the Freeman United Coal Mine and the Peabody Mine. There are discrepancies regarding Seibert's exposure to coal dust: Seibert claims to have been exposed for three months at Old Ben Coal Company, while Higgerson asserts it was only nine days. Rednour's letter indicates 5.5 days of exposure at Mine 27, while Seibert worked at the Peabody Mine, where he was exposed to coal dust for approximately three months while remodeling offices and constructing a conveyor belt. Higgerson acknowledged potential coal dust exposure during the conveyor belt project but provided testimony lacking personal experience. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) faced conflicting testimonies but ultimately credited Seibert's detailed account, concluding he had 18 months of coal dust exposure. However, this finding was recognized as erroneous, reducing Seibert's exposure to 12 months when accounting for actual exposure periods. The presumption of total disability due to pneumoconiosis under 20 C.F.R. sec. 727.203 is uncontested, as Seibert meets the criteria of 10 years of coal mine employment and established pneumoconiosis. R&H can rebut this presumption only by proving that Seibert's total disability did not arise from his coal mine employment, guided by the precedent that even partial contribution from pneumoconiosis negates the possibility of rebuttal under the relevant regulations.

In Zeigler Coal Co. v. Kelley, the court established that the key inquiry is whether Kelley would have been disabled regardless of his pneumoconiosis; if so, the presumption of total disability can be rebutted. The company must demonstrate that black lung disease was not a contributing factor to the disability and that the disability was entirely caused by conditions other than pneumoconiosis. Rebuttal is particularly challenging since the claimant is presumed disabled due to pneumoconiosis, a disease linked to coal mining. 

The case involves Mr. Seibert, whose examinations yielded conflicting diagnoses. Dr. Sanjabi concluded in 1979 that Seibert had mild COPD and coal workers pneumoconiosis connected to his dust exposure in coal mining. In contrast, Dr. Wilhelmus, examining Seibert in 1980, found no evidence of pneumoconiosis and attributed his COPD to tobacco use, asserting that without smoking, Seibert's lung function would be normal. Dr. Culbertson's 1986 assessment indicated simple pneumoconiosis and COPD, predominantly attributed to smoking.

R. H provided evidence for modification, including recent X-rays interpreted as negative for pneumoconiosis and Dr. Darling's opinion that Seibert's lung disease was due to smoking, with no evidence of pneumoconiosis. The death certificate listed cardiac arrest as the cause of death, associated with emphysema and COPD, while small cell lung carcinoma was noted as a significant condition. No autopsy was performed.

The ALJ determined that R.H. did not successfully rebut the presumption concerning the cause of Seibert's disability based on inconclusive and contradictory medical evidence. Key points include: the death certificate, while indicating the cause of death, does not exclude pneumoconiosis as a contributing factor to disability; X-ray evidence alone is insufficient for rebuttal, as supported by a study showing 25% of pneumoconiosis cases have negative X-rays; Dr. Darling's qualifications are not documented, and his opinion lacks substance, being merely a casual letter with vague assertions about Seibert’s health issues. The ALJ found Dr. Darling's conclusions too uncertain to be persuasive. The review of the ALJ's evaluation is upheld, and the Benefits Review Board's decision is affirmed.