Expert Opinion Properly Discounted When In Conflict With Federal Regulation In Mining Case

The Sixth Circuit denied a mining company’s petition for review in a black lung benefits case, holding that the ALJ had properly discounted the company’s expert’s opinion where it conflicted with relevant federal law.  The court also found that the ALJ properly weighed pulmonary function tests.  The mining company had challenged the ALJ’s underlying decision on both grounds.

In the underlying case, the miner had presumptively established his eligibility for benefits by showing that (1) he had been employed in the mines for more than 15 years, and that (2) he suffered from a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment.  In an attempt to rebut this presumption, the mining company’s expert opined that the miner’s chronic bronchitis could not be attributed to coal dust exposure because “bronchitis associated with coal dust exposure usually ceases with cessation of exposure.”  The ALJ discounted the expert’s opinion because it was contrary to federal regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 718.201(c), which states that pneumoconiosis is “a latent and progressive disease which may first become detectable only after the cessation of coal mine dust exposure.”  The Sixth Circuit agreed with the ALJ.  The court explained that where a medical opinion about pneumoconiosis is based on a premise inconsistent with relevant law, the opinion can be properly discredited.  Specifically, the expert’s sole reason for ruling out coal dust exposure as a cause of the miner’s respiratory impairment was this inconsistent premise.

In addition, the Sixth Circuit also found that the ALJ had properly weighed the pulmonary function tests in the case because he had considered the qualitative as well as quantitative differences in the test results, rather than merely limiting his review to a quantitative assessment.