Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Unpublished DispositionNOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.Robert HILTON, Petitioner,v.BENEFITS REVIEW BOARD; Director, Office of WorkersCompensation Programs and Consolidation CoalCompany, Respondents
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit. - 798 F.2d 1414
July 17, 1986
Before WELLFORD and MILBURN, Circuit Judges, and PECK, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
Robert Hilton ("claimant") appeals the Benefits Review Board's (the "Board") denial of black lung benefits claimed under 30 U.S.C. Sec. 901 et seq. On appeal claimant argues that the ALJ erred in finding rebuttal pursuant to 20 C.F.R. Sec. 718.305(a). Because we agree with the Board's conclusion that the ALJ's finding of rebuttal was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm.
On April 14, 1980, claimant filed for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. Sec. 901 et seq., with the Department of Labor, Initially, the claim was approved, and Consolidation Coal Company ("employer") was designated as the responsible operator. Employer controverted the claim, and a formal hearing was held before an ALJ on May 18, 1982. In an opinion issued October 15, 1982, the ALJ denied benefits. In his opinion, the ALJ concluded that employer was the responsible operator and that claimant had established the presumption of -disability due to pneumoconiosis. However, the ALJ denied benefits based on his finding that the presumption had been rebutted. On June 25, 1985, the Board affirmed the ALJ's denial.
Claimant's argument that the ALJ erred in finding rebuttal is threefold. First, claimant asserts that the ALJ based his opinion on evidence which was discredited. Second, claimant argues that the ALJ improperly imposed the burden of proving presence of pneumoconiosis on him. Third, claimant argues that the ALJ erred in finding that the presumption of disability had been rebutted because, claimant asserts, the ALJ's decision was based on X-ray evidence alone.
In addressing claimant's assignments of error, the Board correctly addressed the problem as being one of substantial evidence. That is, as the Board noted, the ALJ's decision must be upheld as long as it is supported by substantial evidence. See Director v. Rowe, 710 P.2d 251, 254 (6th Cir.1983); Haywood v. Secretary, 699 F.2d 277, 285 (6th Cir.1983). The Board concluded that it was, and we agree.
Upon consideration of the briefs and record herein, the judgment of the Benefits Review Board is AFFIRMED for the reasons stated in its opinion.