Collin's versus on concrete mining company and Mr. Stape and please give. Members of the Corps, the starter, the follow. Ma'am, please the court. I'm here today on behalf of Nora Collins, the widow of Johnny Collins who is seeking federal black lung benefits due to the death of her husband because of black lung. In 2006, this court remanded this case for the benefits review board to assess whether the administrative law judges ruling as to whether Mr. Collins's death was caused by his new mo county else's meets the rigorous standard set forth by this court and Scott the Mason-Cold Company. In this case in 2006, this court noted that under the rigorous standards of Scott, the administrative law judge could only give weight to the causation opinions of physicians who had not diagnosed new mo county else's if he provided specific and persuasive reasons for doing so. Those opinions could carry little weight at the most. However, this court went on to state that even if he did give those opinions little weight, those opinions could not suffice a substantial evidence to support the administrative law judge's decision that new mo county else's is not a contributing cause, especially when there's another opinion, even if poorly documented, which links the new mo county else's to the death. Therefore, since the opinions of the physicians in this case who did not diagnose new mo county else's cannot constitute substantial evidence that Mr. Collins's death was not contributed to by his new mo county else's. The question for today is whether there is an opinion in this record, even if poorly reasoned, which links Mr. Collins's death to his new mo county else's. The claimant would submit that not only is there just one opinion, there are four opinions which properly link Mr. Collins's death to his new mo county else's. Those being the opinions of Mr. Collins's treating poinologist, Dr. Eunice, the Department of Labor's Reviewing Poinologist, Dr. Gauzeano, and two of the employers reviewing poinologist, Dr. Morgan and Jarbo. How do you say that the two employer doctors support your proposition? Because when this court entered its opinion in 2006, it held that the employer was collaterally stopped from stating that the minor COPD was not new mo county else's. So while Dr. Morgan and Dr. Jarbo stated that the COPD was due to smoking not new mo county else's, the employer is foreclosed from saying that those diagnosis were not new mo county else's
. Therefore, since the law of the case is that COPD was new mo county else's, their opinions are necessarily that the minor did have new mo county else's. So you're applying the mandate in the previous case, Director Otter, to their opinion. That's Director Otter. It can only come out your way, you say. That's why I see it, Director. Dr. Morgan reviewed all of the medical evidence of record. And he stated that there is clear cut evidence that Mr. Collins had very severe hyposemia as a consequence of his COPD. Dr. Morgan went on to state that it's well recognized that hyposemia makes a person more prone to arrhythmias and makes the arrhythmias more difficult to treat. Dr. Morgan stated that Mr. Collins's death was the consequence of an arrhythmia. Therefore, I would submit that Dr. Morgan's opinion is well documented and well-reasoned that Mr. Collins is COPD, which this court by its mandate in 2006, ruled to be new mo county else's, hastened Mr. Collins's death. Therefore, since Dr. Morgan's opinion properly links Mr. Collins's death to his new mo county else's. The company makes the argument that Mr. Caziano's opinion was relatively worthless because it was just a half page. And Mr
. What's Dr. Yowns? Eunice is the way I pronounce it. I really offered no explanation of how the minor's pulmonary trouble contributed to his death. And I just wanted what you say about that. If you go about what the judge ruled as far as the application of this court's decision, Bill Branch, he stated that Dr. Eunice and Dr. Caziano provided no explanation for their opinions, which is basically what the employer argues. But what this court said and Bill Branch is at an autopsy report, a desertificate without further explanation or supplementation does not suffice to meet the claimants burden. In this case, we do have further supplementation or explanation, since even without considering Dr. Eunice's opinion, since we have the opinions from Dr. Dahl. You're saying they were medical documents and tests and everything that were appended to those explanations? Well, not a well. His treatment records are of record. But first of all, I would point out the opinions of Dr. Morgan and Jarbo do supply the necessary supplementation or explanation. But I do believe that Dr. Eunice's opinion is well documented and well reasoned because he did prepare a very short medical report stating that new Mill County Yelts has contributed to the death. When you look at the record, he treated Mr. E. E. G. He's treating possession for almost three years. Right. Dr
. Eunice is born certified in pulmonary diseases, so he's well qualified. He saw him 19 times during that almost three years in his office as well as seeing him various times in the hospital. He reviewed chest X-rays, pulmonary function studies, arterial blood gas studies, and an echocardiogram. So, he obviously had sufficient data upon which to base his decision. So it's my opinion that Dr. Eunice's opinion goes beyond and fought this course. That fourth and Bill Branch and is a well documented and well reasoned opinion. We generally accord a great deal of deference to the founder of FAC. And here you have what seems like a factual question on whether the new Mill County Yelts was a substantial contributing cause. And what is your chief complaint about the ALJs opinion here? Well, first of all, if you look at Dr. Morgan and Dr. Jairbo's opinions, the judge said that their diagnosis was not a diagnosis of new Mill County Yelts. But as I've already stated by virtue of this course mandate, it is now the law of the case. Right. It's already new Mill County Yelts. And they said that that new Mill County Yelts is contributed to his death. So the employer's positions alone. They just thought it was caused by smoking. Right. But they greedy had it and it was contributed to the death. Right. Right. And then as far as Dr. Eunice and Dr
. Gauzeano, he stated that Bill Branch says that their opinions do not suffice, but as I've stated, I believe that Dr. Eunice and Dr. Gauzeano's opinions go beyond Bill Branch because we have the numerous records from Dr. Eunice who as I've stated was a board certified pulmonologist. And we also have the records from Dr. Gauzeano who was the Department of Labor's reviewing pulmonologist. The judge said he couldn't tell what Dr. Gauzeano reviewed. But if you look at the file, Dr. Gauzeano said he looked at the case file. The case file at the time Dr. Gauzeano looked at it, included the application, the work history. The almost three years of treatment records from Dr. Eunice, the hospitalization records from 1996 to 1997, as well as records from Dr. Mian. So when the AOMJ said, well, this was a cigar smoking and cardiac difficulties that led to his death, I always thought that heart and lung difficulties were intimately related. I mean, I'm not aware of that. I don't know where it's located, but I just thought it was an almost a basic principle in medicine that if you have a respiratory ailment, it's going to lead to cardiac malfunction. I think it's important to... A nice verse of it. Particularly a respiratory problem is not going to supply the heart with the blood and the oxygen and everything it needs to function effectively. So I guess your point is, you can't just wall these two off and say that medically they don't impact one another
. Well, I think when you look at the judges' decision, he said that it was a respiratory death. And then when you look at the opinions from Dr. Eunice, Morgan, Jarbo, and Gauzeano, all of them said that he died of cardiac arrest, which had been caused by his respiratory failure. So I think you're correct, the heart and the lungs work together. And as a result of the respiratory insufficiency, his heart was start of oxygen and quick. For the fact that the immediate cause of death may have been a cardiac failure, in your view, would not rule out the fact of the respiratory difficulty in the pneumoconic disease. The question is whether the death was hastened by pneumoconic illness, it's not whether there was just one cause of the death. And in this case, obviously the respiratory insufficiency hastened the death because- hastening the keyword in it. That is correct in this court's decision. Chef, the Cedar Colc Company, the question is whether the death was hastened, not whether it was the major. We're going to get that hastened, there's other. That's out of this court's decision. Chef, the Cedar Colc Company, I can get the site for you if you like, it's in a brief, but Chef, S-H-U-F-F. And if it might have been oppressed in the pneumoconic illnesses, hastened someone's death and it is a substantial contributing cause, because as soon as they're all unlit. Right, that's correct, John. And whether the pneumoconicosis was here was caused by a coal mining. That's correct, John. Not at that last time, we're almost 36 years of work. But he had what, 30-something years in the underground mines. Right, that's correct, John. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Robert. I'm a smotherer
. I have used coming up second, and then I have, this rope will are in rebuttal, am I correct? Oh, sorry, misunderstood, sir. May I please the court on Kathy Snyder on behalf of Pong Creek Co-Company. Before going into the specifics of the arguments that Mr. State and just discussed, I just want to point out that there's one procedural aspect of this case. It's very important this morning when we consider all of the arguments. The judge here was in a situation where all of the medical evidence in this case was developed 14 to 17 years ago. So when he looked at this evidence in 2012, he had to apply the law that exists today to evidence that was developed many years ago. There has been progression in not only the medical science since that time, those decisions. We have a college, that. He died in 1997. She filed her claim that same year. His surviving spouse is really still living. Yes, sir. And she has continued to exercise her appellate rights. And we have gone through the process. And now that the judge had to look at this in 2012 and apply. The first decision was what eight years ago. The 2006 was the first decision by this court. And. It's hard to believe that somebody who has been ruled by this court as having pneumocontiosis. And has spent 30 to 6 years working in the mind. And I got most of that was was underground. It wasn't just an office job. And
. It's just we held he was fully disabled by pneumocontiosis. And then how could it not be a substantial contributing cause to his death? I mean, you know that respiratory failure is the fact that cardiac functioning. The way the judge described it here, there are three elements that have to be decided in any survivor's claim. The first two are whether he has pneumocontiosis and whether that pneumocontiosis related to cold dust. And this court had already decided those two factors in 2006. The third element though is whether or not the death is a substantially contributing cause the pneumocontiosis to that death. And in order to prove that it's a substantially contributing cause there are five ways to do that in the regulation. And the way that applies here is that fifth element, which is whether it hastens death. And that's what the judge was having to decide based on the evidence that was in the record. There has to be some decision medically that says this was a hastening factor here that it's somehow weakened his lungs or pretty much a situation where. He would not have died at the same time just due to his cardiac problems. What about the opinions of Dr. Morgan and. Jarbo I mean you go after Dr. Eunice and. And got to know is being too conclusory but those weren't the only opinions here. You have Dr. Morgan. And Jarbo supporting that one of them. And one of the units is actually that. As Judge King pointed out, he's treating physician and he treated him for a period of three years. When you when you combine those four physicians together of plus 36 years in the minds plus a prior court finding that he was disabled fully disabled by virtue of. And he was coming out this. You have a pretty strong
. No sir because what happened here is the judge applied the case law as this court instructed him to do in 2006 and discredit essentially every opinion in the record based on the current case law. He said under the Scott decision and under the told their decision he could not credit any of the employer's doctors because. They didn't even find disease so this court held if they don't find disease and they can't be credited as to disability or death causation unless there's a very specific push. Ways of reasons to do so and even then they can only be given little weight. So he's basically throughout all of the employer's doctors that left him with doctors. And Dr. Yone says this is a minute. He found that both of those under this court's decision in Bill branch were conclusory. They were ball conclusions because they stated new mechaniosis contributed to death and that was it. They didn't explain it. They didn't give any mechanism and the director can see the page 30 of their brief that neither of those opinions. Contained that explanation of why. Dr. Morgan's opinion. Cannot be credited on the issue of death causation because not only did he not find disease. He explained that death was in no way related to cardiac or two co workers in the Kenneosis. He attributed the minor's death entirely to cardiac problems on page 360 of the joint appendix. He gives his analysis that the minor died due to cardiac arrhythmia, which is an irregular heartbeat. And that really made worse and made harder to treat by the fact that he had hypoxemia, which is low oxygen level in the blood. So he said that this man's cardiac condition would have caused his death at the same time in the same manner at he never been a homeowner. So I mean essentially he's saying that it was attributable entirely to cardiac function. Now he does say in the report that there is some component, some aspect of it that they have hypoxemia was in some way attributable to the chronic destructive pulmonary disease, which this court held in 2006 by collateral stop. Both is related to cold, us exposure. But what the claimant and the director asking you to do is take that legal conclusion and use it to change Dr
. Morgan and Dr. Jarbo's opinion to say something that they didn't say. They did not attribute this minor's death in any way to call my endest exposure. So their opinions cannot be basis of a finding of death due to cold, us exposure. That's not what they said. There would not be substantial evidence in the record to support that decision or to credit those two doctors. In fact, the claimant was here in 2006 arguing that those two doctors should be discredited and that the judge was wrong in crediting them. Now we're back here six, seven years later and he's arguing they should be credited. Yeah, basically here is the situation where the judge did exactly what this court told him to do. They said go back and look at these. You can't credit those doctors opinions if they didn't find disease unless you have very specific persuasive reasons to do so. He didn't find any. He gave Dr. Morgan's and Dr. Zalda bars opinion. He said could be entitled to little weight, but he really says on page 776. When the court said they were entitled to no weight, was that a deal with a different element of the case that didn't deal with the causation element. Right. They said, well, it doesn't know. It did deal with the death causation element. What this court held in Collins in 2006 was that the judge had mistakenly decided to credit those opinions even though they found that the man didn't have disease. So the fact that Dr. Morgan and Dr. Darbo said that he didn't have any condition related, call my dust exposure
. They said he had Dr. Morgan said he had COPD. What do you call it? Yes, and by operation, then collateral stop. This court didn't say that any of those opinions were well reasoned or well documented. What they said was you have to go back and reway that evidence given our decisions and Scott and toller. And that's what the judge did. And as you stated, Judge Wilkesson, we give extreme deference here to the findings of fact of the ALJ. He went through a very detailed analysis here and gave specific rational reasons as to why he discredited every doctor basically based on today's data. What Dr. Morgan and Dr. Darbo should be credited in view of the fact that earlier opinion found that he was totally disabled due to Neutronia. No, because disability is not a factor in a death claim. Only death causation. So the fact that he was found to be and the judge admits he had a respiratory impairment significant respiratory impairment before he died. That he had COPD, which is attributable by collateral stop in part to coldest exposure. But as he explained, every respiratory death is not necessarily related to the call my dust exposure. There has to be some well reasoned or well documented medical. Dr. Morgan said it was related to COPD. He just disagreed with what caused the COPD. Correct. He said the COPD was due to the 40 year of smoking his smoking didn't have anything to do with 36 years and the coal mine. And that's exactly what I find. But he tied it to his death. He did. And so did Dr. Darbo. Both of them said that in part, COPD, which has already been resolved in the prior case, but they agree that they support the proposition that it hasten his death. But then you would be so you would be using two doctors who said the minor's death was not only did he not have the disease, but he didn't die as a result of it. And you're taking a legal conclusion and you're replacing it for what those doctors actually found. You're correcting those. The hastened these dead. They just simply disagreed what has to what caused the lung problem, which is the only element still in litigation. Is what whether it was hastened these death or not. And they agreed at hastened these death. They agree it hasn't disagreed. They disagreed with what caused the lung problem. Is why I see it. And I agree. I think that's what the other side. I think that's what Mr. Slayton was. Hard to in any way, too. But anyway, you understand your position. I think. Our position basically is that the judge did exactly what he was supposed to do. He went back and rewade the medical opinions under the courts case law in Scott in Mason and in Bill branch. And he said that this is the situation that mimics the Bill branch
. He did. And so did Dr. Darbo. Both of them said that in part, COPD, which has already been resolved in the prior case, but they agree that they support the proposition that it hasten his death. But then you would be so you would be using two doctors who said the minor's death was not only did he not have the disease, but he didn't die as a result of it. And you're taking a legal conclusion and you're replacing it for what those doctors actually found. You're correcting those. The hastened these dead. They just simply disagreed what has to what caused the lung problem, which is the only element still in litigation. Is what whether it was hastened these death or not. And they agreed at hastened these death. They agree it hasn't disagreed. They disagreed with what caused the lung problem. Is why I see it. And I agree. I think that's what the other side. I think that's what Mr. Slayton was. Hard to in any way, too. But anyway, you understand your position. I think. Our position basically is that the judge did exactly what he was supposed to do. He went back and rewade the medical opinions under the courts case law in Scott in Mason and in Bill branch. And he said that this is the situation that mimics the Bill branch. I can't credit Dr. Guazi on his. I can't credit the treating physician, Dr. Guiana is because they simply didn't explain their decisions. They were not well documented. And even if you find that they were able to credit a poorly documented opinion, which seems to be what Scott case indicated. They still based on a long line of cases out of this court have to be a reasoned medical decision. And he decided neither one of them were and gave very specific reasons for his decision. Then he said that I can't say that the employer's doctors can now be used to support death causation when they didn't find that the minor died as a result of coal mine dust exposure. They found that it didn't matter. So if I want to follow up on Judge King's point for a minute, if the earlier conclusion about what caused the lung problem and that resulted in a disagreement between pneumoconiosis and smoking. And if this courts earlier said that it was pneumoconiosis that caused the lung problem. Then Dr. Morgan is simply saying whatever caused the lung problem. He's been facing this gentleman's doubt. And he goes into our respiratory conditions effect. Part day or months and everything. So why wouldn't his opinion still be a valid opinion on the general proposition of how, of whether the lung problem. As opposed to cardiac problem. Intributed to the minor's death now, you know, the part of the phase of the case is to what caused the lung problem is over. And so it's a question of what contributed his death, but on that particular point. Dr. Morgan's opinion is. Is the pretty pretty persuasive one, isn't it? Well, as both the judge and the benefits review board said in this case, they wouldn't take the legal finding that the minor had pneumoconiosis
. I can't credit Dr. Guazi on his. I can't credit the treating physician, Dr. Guiana is because they simply didn't explain their decisions. They were not well documented. And even if you find that they were able to credit a poorly documented opinion, which seems to be what Scott case indicated. They still based on a long line of cases out of this court have to be a reasoned medical decision. And he decided neither one of them were and gave very specific reasons for his decision. Then he said that I can't say that the employer's doctors can now be used to support death causation when they didn't find that the minor died as a result of coal mine dust exposure. They found that it didn't matter. So if I want to follow up on Judge King's point for a minute, if the earlier conclusion about what caused the lung problem and that resulted in a disagreement between pneumoconiosis and smoking. And if this courts earlier said that it was pneumoconiosis that caused the lung problem. Then Dr. Morgan is simply saying whatever caused the lung problem. He's been facing this gentleman's doubt. And he goes into our respiratory conditions effect. Part day or months and everything. So why wouldn't his opinion still be a valid opinion on the general proposition of how, of whether the lung problem. As opposed to cardiac problem. Intributed to the minor's death now, you know, the part of the phase of the case is to what caused the lung problem is over. And so it's a question of what contributed his death, but on that particular point. Dr. Morgan's opinion is. Is the pretty pretty persuasive one, isn't it? Well, as both the judge and the benefits review board said in this case, they wouldn't take the legal finding that the minor had pneumoconiosis. And his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was caused or contributed to by cold dust and use that to fix or correct. And so that's not that Dr. Morgan's opinion in the saying that that was cause of death. So they weren't going to take the legal decision on disability and on existence of the disease and use that to say, OK, that means Dr. Morgan and Dr. Marbo must believe or could support a finding of death causation here when both those doctors said that it wasn't related in any way to call my just exposure. Just like we wouldn't we resolved in 2006. Dr. Morgan, it was your expert. He wrote to that letter in January of 1999. And he said, well, not related to cold mind dust exposure. It's because he smoked too much. You wouldn't because he worked in the coal mines for 36 years. He just he just smoked too much and that was resolved in the first case. But he also said his long problem, which he attributed to smoking, pacing these dead. Which is the only question we have here today, whether it gets long problem, which has been determined in our prior decision in 2006 to be related to to be pneumoconiosis. Yes, that part's been determined that has been did it hasten these death, Dr. Morgan says yes, right on the money on page 360. By this court also. The J.A. Let me ask you. There was a presumption that. It was in presume that it was a death causation
. And his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was caused or contributed to by cold dust and use that to fix or correct. And so that's not that Dr. Morgan's opinion in the saying that that was cause of death. So they weren't going to take the legal decision on disability and on existence of the disease and use that to say, OK, that means Dr. Morgan and Dr. Marbo must believe or could support a finding of death causation here when both those doctors said that it wasn't related in any way to call my just exposure. Just like we wouldn't we resolved in 2006. Dr. Morgan, it was your expert. He wrote to that letter in January of 1999. And he said, well, not related to cold mind dust exposure. It's because he smoked too much. You wouldn't because he worked in the coal mines for 36 years. He just he just smoked too much and that was resolved in the first case. But he also said his long problem, which he attributed to smoking, pacing these dead. Which is the only question we have here today, whether it gets long problem, which has been determined in our prior decision in 2006 to be related to to be pneumoconiosis. Yes, that part's been determined that has been did it hasten these death, Dr. Morgan says yes, right on the money on page 360. By this court also. The J.A. Let me ask you. There was a presumption that. It was in presume that it was a death causation. That was the law by the statute in action in 2005. But was it the law when Mrs Collins filed her claim? No, it was not your honor at the time this claim was filed in 1997. There was no presumption of death causation that it will apply in this case. She had the burden to prove by propondence of the evidence that the miners death was hastened by pneumoconiosis. That's why Judge Lesnitt or after he discredited Dr. Jonas and Dr. Gauzeano her opinions that she had put forth. He could have stopped there because she had failed to sustain her burden of proof. In 2000, the regulations were talking about the statutory change in 2005 shifted that burden in some cases such as this to the employer. That's not case here. And he was one of the. As a matter of the record here, he was. Determined to have. Black lung disease pneumoconiosis in 1988. Yes, and his living. Benefits from then from that point. Until his death in 1997. That's correct. And that's why they court and the collateral. About her claim. And that's been litigated now. 17 years. Yes, sir. That's correct
. That was the law by the statute in action in 2005. But was it the law when Mrs Collins filed her claim? No, it was not your honor at the time this claim was filed in 1997. There was no presumption of death causation that it will apply in this case. She had the burden to prove by propondence of the evidence that the miners death was hastened by pneumoconiosis. That's why Judge Lesnitt or after he discredited Dr. Jonas and Dr. Gauzeano her opinions that she had put forth. He could have stopped there because she had failed to sustain her burden of proof. In 2000, the regulations were talking about the statutory change in 2005 shifted that burden in some cases such as this to the employer. That's not case here. And he was one of the. As a matter of the record here, he was. Determined to have. Black lung disease pneumoconiosis in 1988. Yes, and his living. Benefits from then from that point. Until his death in 1997. That's correct. And that's why they court and the collateral. About her claim. And that's been litigated now. 17 years. Yes, sir. That's correct. I see my times about to be of inclusion. It's concrete exposition that the ALJ did what he was supposed to do is the trial of fact. He explained his rationale and that the court should defer as the board did to those findings that they were well reasoned. They were supported by substantial evidence in this record as none of the physicians that were been discussing here today. Dr. Morgan and Dr. Jarbo found a. That co workers in his. This or call us exposure or his employment as a minor cause contributed to his death that the ALJ appropriately failed to credit those opinions. And we would ask that. That decision be sustained. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Roll flow happy to hear from you. Good morning. My name is Rita Rapolo and I represent the director of the Office of Work is compensation programs. The employer refuses to accept that the ALJ in this case made errors. The LJ may three significant errors. The first is that the LJ refused to accept that doctor or even consider that Dr. Morgan's opinion supports. That the minus COPD contributed to his death. Dr. Morgan explained how that happens
. I see my times about to be of inclusion. It's concrete exposition that the ALJ did what he was supposed to do is the trial of fact. He explained his rationale and that the court should defer as the board did to those findings that they were well reasoned. They were supported by substantial evidence in this record as none of the physicians that were been discussing here today. Dr. Morgan and Dr. Jarbo found a. That co workers in his. This or call us exposure or his employment as a minor cause contributed to his death that the ALJ appropriately failed to credit those opinions. And we would ask that. That decision be sustained. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Roll flow happy to hear from you. Good morning. My name is Rita Rapolo and I represent the director of the Office of Work is compensation programs. The employer refuses to accept that the ALJ in this case made errors. The LJ may three significant errors. The first is that the LJ refused to accept that doctor or even consider that Dr. Morgan's opinion supports. That the minus COPD contributed to his death. Dr. Morgan explained how that happens. That COPD leads to high proximity which is difficult of getting the oxygen into the blood. And that in turn leads to arrhythmia. Which Dr. Morgan said was the cause of the of the minor's death. Dr. Morgan proved to be actually very and he also said. Dr. Morgan also said that having this COPD in the arrhythmia. Unfortunately affected how the heart condition can even be treated. And that we see from the hospital report in the month that the minor died. It's a cardiac consultation. And it specifically said that the doctor or the hospital was not considering doing an aggressive cardiac workup. Because of the minus end stage pulmonary condition. So there is the explanation that the ALJ kept looking for. He was just looking in the wrong places. We just assuming argument. We agree with you. Would you favor a remand of the ALJ and sit or for example, Dr. Morgan's opinion or would you favor this like Dave on award of benefit? We would. We would. We would agree with you that there was error. What do you. We would suggest a reversal on that being an award of benefits. Because actually the
. That COPD leads to high proximity which is difficult of getting the oxygen into the blood. And that in turn leads to arrhythmia. Which Dr. Morgan said was the cause of the of the minor's death. Dr. Morgan proved to be actually very and he also said. Dr. Morgan also said that having this COPD in the arrhythmia. Unfortunately affected how the heart condition can even be treated. And that we see from the hospital report in the month that the minor died. It's a cardiac consultation. And it specifically said that the doctor or the hospital was not considering doing an aggressive cardiac workup. Because of the minus end stage pulmonary condition. So there is the explanation that the ALJ kept looking for. He was just looking in the wrong places. We just assuming argument. We agree with you. Would you favor a remand of the ALJ and sit or for example, Dr. Morgan's opinion or would you favor this like Dave on award of benefit? We would. We would. We would agree with you that there was error. What do you. We would suggest a reversal on that being an award of benefits. Because actually the. The judge has made some findings that we can accept. I mean in the end, the question is. Was it the CLPD that everybody accepts or has to accept with due to call mine employment? Did that hasten or not even they didn't contribute to the minor's death. And you have four doctors, Dr. Eunice, that's a gaseano, Dr. Jevo and Dr. Morgan saying that the CLB did contribute. But admittedly, there are four other employees, doctors who said no, no, no, it was not the CLPD. It was hard, just solely hard that caused. But I don't think we have to and the the ALJ did not consider in terms of weighing these doctors against each other. But I think there's enough here that we could decide that the way to the evidence shows that it was a combination. I mean, let's let's assume that the ALJ erred in not considering Dr. Morgan's opinion in light of our earlier ruling. That Dr. Morgan's opinion is to a long heart causation was worthy to consider. One option would be to remain for proper consideration of Dr. Morgan's opinion. Another option would be to say in light of our earlier decision, in light of his extensive coal mining history, in light of the oil positions all taken together in light of the long and torturous history of this case. At the time it had come for the case to be resolved and concluded not to have been subject to another remand. So just just tell us very forwardly how the director's view. We get to an award of 10th. Rather than simply another remand. We get the award. There's the order of benefits because it is undisputed that the minor had COPD as far back as 1988 that it was totally disabled at that time and that it was due to coal mine employment
. The judge has made some findings that we can accept. I mean in the end, the question is. Was it the CLPD that everybody accepts or has to accept with due to call mine employment? Did that hasten or not even they didn't contribute to the minor's death. And you have four doctors, Dr. Eunice, that's a gaseano, Dr. Jevo and Dr. Morgan saying that the CLB did contribute. But admittedly, there are four other employees, doctors who said no, no, no, it was not the CLPD. It was hard, just solely hard that caused. But I don't think we have to and the the ALJ did not consider in terms of weighing these doctors against each other. But I think there's enough here that we could decide that the way to the evidence shows that it was a combination. I mean, let's let's assume that the ALJ erred in not considering Dr. Morgan's opinion in light of our earlier ruling. That Dr. Morgan's opinion is to a long heart causation was worthy to consider. One option would be to remain for proper consideration of Dr. Morgan's opinion. Another option would be to say in light of our earlier decision, in light of his extensive coal mining history, in light of the oil positions all taken together in light of the long and torturous history of this case. At the time it had come for the case to be resolved and concluded not to have been subject to another remand. So just just tell us very forwardly how the director's view. We get to an award of 10th. Rather than simply another remand. We get the award. There's the order of benefits because it is undisputed that the minor had COPD as far back as 1988 that it was totally disabled at that time and that it was due to coal mine employment. And things have not changed that the COPD did not improve. It got worse. It was so bad that they couldn't even do a proper heart treatment evaluation here. And there is an explanation of how that happened through Dr. Morgan. We have causation opinions, especially by Dr. Eunice, who's eminently qualified. He's a board certified internist and pulmonologist. Treated the minor for three years. Said the minor was in and out of the hospital the last year, sometimes twice a month because of its pulmonary condition. We have Dr. Morgan explaining how that works. We have a few doctors who say no, it wasn't COPD that caused. It was the heart. But the judge discredited them either because they too generalized or they had assumptions contrary to the act. And also the judge thought that he was constrained by this course decision in branch that if there's no explanation, then any award has to be reversed. That's what happened in branch, completely different situation where the minor had pneumoconosis, but there was no indication of that was it even a serious unconscious. Was there a totally disabled and respite condition? That's that's branch. Here, there's no doubt that was a serious pulmonary condition. The judge was effectively. It's the question of the case. I mean, again, I don't have a lot of medical expertise. And I'm not an A.L
. And things have not changed that the COPD did not improve. It got worse. It was so bad that they couldn't even do a proper heart treatment evaluation here. And there is an explanation of how that happened through Dr. Morgan. We have causation opinions, especially by Dr. Eunice, who's eminently qualified. He's a board certified internist and pulmonologist. Treated the minor for three years. Said the minor was in and out of the hospital the last year, sometimes twice a month because of its pulmonary condition. We have Dr. Morgan explaining how that works. We have a few doctors who say no, it wasn't COPD that caused. It was the heart. But the judge discredited them either because they too generalized or they had assumptions contrary to the act. And also the judge thought that he was constrained by this course decision in branch that if there's no explanation, then any award has to be reversed. That's what happened in branch, completely different situation where the minor had pneumoconosis, but there was no indication of that was it even a serious unconscious. Was there a totally disabled and respite condition? That's that's branch. Here, there's no doubt that was a serious pulmonary condition. The judge was effectively. It's the question of the case. I mean, again, I don't have a lot of medical expertise. And I'm not an A.L.J. and I haven't heard the evidence, but I just, it doesn't add up to me that somebody is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis in his spelt. I'm 36 years in a month. And how that, I don't understand how it could not have contributed. I mean, it just doesn't compute with me. No, absolutely. It's just common knowledge raises, and which is also why for the judge to say that there was insufficient explanation. I mean, sometimes you don't need to connect. The doctor doesn't need to connect at all. Sometimes the judge can do it when there's such a pulmonary condition as this minor had. How could it not have caused? And interestingly, the one thing when the doctor, some of the doctors said that it wasn't due to respiratory, it was due to cardiac. I mean, sometimes it's a good thing not to be an expert. Sometimes though, it's just common sense. And yes, so it's not saying. And common sense here would, would argue. Sometimes you know, when experts have their place, sometimes they get lost in the weeds. Yes. And sometimes it's a good thing to have somebody step back. Sometimes doctors don't step back. And in this case, sometimes ALJs don't step back. Okay. Thank you. Let me see. I think we'll come down and greet Council and then we'll move directly into our next step