Clarifying the Evidentiary Value of Resting versus Exercise Arterial Blood-Gas Studies in Black-Lung Claims:
Consolidation Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP & Joseph Murphy, Jr., 4th Cir., No. 23-1989 (June 16 2025)

1. Introduction

This unpublished decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addresses the evidentiary weight to be assigned to resting and exercise arterial blood-gas studies (ABGSs) when determining total disability under the Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944. The petitioner, Consolidation Coal Company (“Employer”), sought review of a Benefits Review Board (BRB) order that upheld an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) award of benefits to Joseph Murphy, Jr. (“Claimant”), a former coal miner with 27 years of underground work.

The critical dispute centered on whether the ALJ adequately explained why she relied on qualifying resting ABGSs despite a more recent non-qualifying exercise ABGS. Employer insisted that an exercise study is intrinsically more probative of a miner’s work capacity and therefore should control. The Fourth Circuit rejected that argument and denied the petition for review.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Fourth Circuit held that the ALJ properly weighed conflicting ABGS evidence and was not required by regulation or precedent to prefer the June 25 2020 exercise ABGS over the February 4 2020 and October 14 2020 resting studies.
• The court confirmed that an ALJ’s duty of explanation is satisfied where the opinion makes clear “what the ALJ did and why she did it.”
• Because the ALJ’s decision was supported by substantial evidence, and the Employer failed to rebut the § 718.305 presumption of disability due to legal pneumoconiosis, the petition for review was denied.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. W. Va. CWP Fund v. Bender, 782 F.3d 129 (4th Cir. 2015)
   Restated the four BLBA entitlement elements and framed the legal landscape for eligibility.
2. Island Creek Coal Co. v. Blankenship, 123 F.4th 684 (4th Cir. 2024)
   Emphasized the requirement that a miner first prove total disability before invoking the 15-year rebuttable presumption and articulated the appellate deference standard (“understand what the ALJ did and why”). The present decision extends that principle to the specific context of resting vs. exercise ABGSs.
3. American Energy, LLC v. Director, OWCP, 106 F.4th 319 (4th Cir. 2024)
   Reaffirmed deference to ALJ fact-finding under substantial-evidence review. Provides the framework used by the Fourth Circuit here.
4. Sea “B” Mining Co. v. Addison, 831 F.3d 244 (4th Cir. 2016)
   Clarified that conflict-resolution and credibility determinations are the ALJ’s province, guiding the court’s refusal to re-weigh evidence.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Fourth Circuit applied a two-step inquiry:

1. Substantial-Evidence Review: The panel examined whether record evidence—including all ABGSs and medical opinions—supported the ALJ’s finding of total disability. Both 2020 resting ABGSs were qualifying. One 2020 exercise ABGS was non-qualifying. Earlier (2017) resting and exercise tests were qualifying. The court deemed the ALJ’s synthesis of this data reasonable.
2. APA Adequacy of Explanation: Citing Island Creek, the panel confirmed that regulations (20 C.F.R. § 718.105) treat both resting and exercise studies as probative of gas-exchange impairment; an exercise test is required only when a resting study is non-qualifying. Consequently, the ALJ’s refusal to elevate the single non-qualifying exercise test over two more recent qualifying resting tests did not constitute legal error.

3.3 Impact of the Decision

• Clarification of Evidentiary Hierarchy: The decision makes clear that, absent regulatory language mandating precedence, ALJs retain discretion to weigh resting and exercise ABGSs based on the entire medical record, chronology, and probative value—not per se hierarchy.
• Reinforcement of “Explanatory Sufficiency” Standard: The court reiterates that exhaustive detail is unnecessary; a logically transparent explanation is enough to survive judicial review.
• Employer Rebuttal Strategy: Employers challenging total disability findings must do more than highlight a single non-qualifying test; they must show that the ALJ’s holistic evaluation is irrational or contrary to law—which this case makes difficult when multiple qualifying tests exist.
• Guidance to ALJs Nationwide: Although unpublished, the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning will likely be cited before other tribunals to counter the argument that exercise ABGSs are automatically more probative.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Pneumoconiosis: A chronic lung disease caused by inhalation of coal dust. “Clinical” refers to X-ray-visible fibrosis; “Legal” encompasses any chronic lung disease arising out of coal mine employment, even without radiographic evidence.
• Total Disability (§ 718.204): An impairment severe enough—by PFTs, ABGSs, cor pulmonale evidence, or physician opinion—to prevent the miner from performing his usual coal-mine work and comparable employment.
• ABGS (Arterial Blood-Gas Study): Measures oxygen (PaO₂) and carbon-dioxide (PaCO₂) levels in arterial blood at rest and/or after exercise. “Qualifying” means the values fall below regulatory tables, indicating hypoxemia consistent with disability.
• Rebuttable 15-Year Presumption (§ 718.305): A miner with ≥15 years of qualifying underground (or similar) work and total disability is presumed disabled due to pneumoconiosis; the burden shifts to the employer to rebut.
• Substantial Evidence: “More than a scintilla” of evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It does not require proof beyond doubt.

5. Conclusion

Consolidation Coal Co. v. DOWCP delivers two pivotal lessons for BLBA litigation:

1. Regulations confer equal potential probative value on resting and exercise ABGSs; an ALJ may credit qualifying resting studies over a non-qualifying exercise study when justified by the record.
2. An ALJ’s explanatory duty under the Administrative Procedure Act is fulfilled by a coherent narrative that enables the reviewing court to discern the path of reasoning, without demanding exhaustive detail.

By endorsing the ALJ’s balanced evaluation, the Fourth Circuit strengthens adjudicators’ discretion in evidence-weighing and signals to employers that isolated non-qualifying results are insufficient to overturn benefit awards. The ruling thus refines the procedural and evidentiary contours of black-lung jurisprudence and will guide future determinations in the Fourth Circuit and beyond.