“More Than the Missing Blanks”: The Fourth Circuit Reinforces an ALJ’s Duty to Explain Reliance on Claimant Forms in Black-Lung Cases
Commentary on Juanita Cavendish v. Director, OWCP (4th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

Juanita Cavendish, the widow of long-time coal miner Jamie Cavendish, petitioned the Fourth Circuit to review an order of the Benefits Review Board (BRB) that had affirmed an Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of black-lung benefits. The ALJ concluded that Mr. Cavendish failed to prove “total disability” because, in the ALJ’s view, his last coal-mine job—bulldozer operator—required only “light” exertion, a level he could still perform. The critical fact leading to that classification was not what Mr. Cavendish (or any witness) affirmatively said, but what he failed to write on a Department of Labor CM-913 form: he left blank the lines asking how often he lifted or carried items on the job.

On June 13 2025, a divided Fourth Circuit (Judge Harris with Judge King; Judge Agee dissenting) granted the petition, vacated the BRB’s order, and remanded for further proceedings. Although the opinion is unpublished—and therefore not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit—it articulates a clear principle with potential persuasive force nationwide: when an ALJ relies on omissions in a claimant’s form to outweigh contradictory record evidence, the ALJ must provide a cogent explanation that allows appellate review for substantial-evidence support.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Holding. The ALJ inadequately explained the decision to classify bulldozer-operator work as “light” based almost exclusively on blank spaces in Form CM-913. Without a fuller rationale, the Fourth Circuit could not determine whether substantial evidence supported the result.
• Disposition. Petition for review granted; BRB order vacated; case remanded to the ALJ for a fresh explanation (or reconsideration) of the exertional-level finding and any downstream credibility determinations.
• Dissent. Judge Agee would have affirmed, concluding the ALJ’s explanation was adequate and supported by substantial evidence, and warning against undue “administrative verbosity.”

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Milburn Colliery Co. v. Hicks, 138 F.3d 524 (4th Cir. 1998) & Bill Branch Coal Corp. v. Sparks, 213 F.3d 186 (4th Cir. 2000) – Both emphasize an ALJ’s duty to analyze all relevant evidence and to explain the chosen path so that a reviewing court is not left “guessing.” The panel treats this duty as the lodestar for remand.
• Smith v. Chater, 99 F.3d 635 (4th Cir. 1996) – Reiterates that appellate courts cannot re-weigh evidence if ALJ findings are supported by substantial evidence; invoked to justify deference when adequate explanation exists.
• Jewell Smokeless Coal Corp. v. Street, 42 F.3d 241 (4th Cir. 1994) – Provides the general substantial-evidence standard under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for black-lung cases.
• Island Creek Coal Co. v. Belt, 835 F. App’x 8 (6th Cir. 2020) & Dominion Coal Corp. v. Clark, 2024 WL 1905047 – Both recognize the Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) as acceptable evidence of job-exertion levels, especially when the miner is deceased; used to question the ALJ’s preference for the form over DOT classifications.
• SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) – Cited implicitly for the notion that reviewing courts cannot sustain agency action on grounds not invoked by the agency (ALJ) itself.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The majority framed its inquiry around two APA imperatives:

1. Comprehensive consideration. The ALJ must “analyze all relevant evidence,” especially when evidence points in opposite directions.
2. Articulated rationale. The ALJ must “explain why” certain evidence is credited over contrary evidence.

Applying those guideposts, the court found the ALJ’s opinion wanting for three related reasons:

• Over-weighting silence. Treating blank lines on Form CM-913 as affirmative proof that Mr. Cavendish never lifted or carried anything “significant” was, in the panel’s view, an inferential leap that required explanation.
• Failure to reconcile affirmative contrary evidence. The record contained (i) a documented workers’-comp lifting injury; (ii) Mr. Cavendish’s widow’s testimony about moving 75-100-pound batteries; (iii) DOT classification of bulldozer operator as “heavy;” and (iv) Dr. Sood’s medical opinion drawn from treating miners performing similar tasks. The ALJ dismissed all of those data points largely because they conflicted with the inferences drawn from Form CM-913, without explaining why the form was more reliable than the other sources.
• Inconsistent handling of omissions. The ALJ looked outside the CM-913 to infer the existence of foot-control work (helping shift the job from “sedentary” to “light”)—an inference favorable to denying benefits—yet declined to consider that other undisclosed tasks (occasional heavy lifting) might also exist. The panel deemed this selective skepticism unexplained.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Decision

Although unpublished, the opinion:

• Signals stricter scrutiny of ALJ form-based inferences. ALJs in the Fourth Circuit, and potentially nationwide, will likely avoid relying solely on CM-913 omissions unless they articulate why those omissions are inherently credible and how they square with contrary evidence.
• Practical guidance for claimant and defense counsel. Claimants’ attorneys will emphasize completing CM-913s comprehensively and gathering corroborative job-description evidence (DOT entries, co-worker affidavits, maintenance logs). Employer counsel will anticipate the need to defend any form-based inference with additional corroboration.
• Reinforces the APA explanation requirement beyond black-lung law. Administrative litigants—whether in Social Security, Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation, or other benefits regimes—can cite Cavendish to challenge cryptic ALJ rationales.
• Delineates the outer edge of “administrative verbosity.” The dissent warns against requiring exhaustive opinions; the majority clarifies that what is needed is clarity, not length. Future ALJ decisions may trend toward concise but explicit evidentiary weighing discussions.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA). A federal statute (30 U.S.C. § 901 et seq.) providing monthly and medical benefits to coal miners who suffer from pneumoconiosis (“black lung disease”). To win benefits, a miner must prove four elements: (1) the disease, (2) it arose from coal-mine work, (3) total disability, and (4) the disease contributed to that disability.
• Total Disability (§ 718.204). Not the inability to perform any work, but the inability to do one’s usual coal-mine job. It can be proven by medical testing (spirometry, blood gases) or by a physician’s reasoned opinion.
• Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT). A Department of Labor compendium that classifies thousands of jobs by “Strength Factor”—sedentary, light, medium, heavy, very heavy—based on how much weight is lifted and how often.
• Form CM-913 (“Description of Coal Mine Work”). A claimant-completed form asking for daily physical requirements (e.g., how many hours per day lifting, carrying, standing). It does not expressly ask about tasks performed less than daily.
• Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Substantial-Evidence Review. Appellate courts defer to agency fact-finding if supported by “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept,” but only when the agency explains how it reached its conclusions.

5. Conclusion

Cavendish v. DOWCP does not create a new statutory test; rather, it polishes an existing administrative-law gem: an ALJ’s findings must be traceable through a clear, reasoned path, especially when they rest on negative inferences drawn from claimant-completed forms. By vacating the BRB’s affirmation and remanding for a fuller rationale, the Fourth Circuit underscores that silence is not always golden.

Going forward, ALJs will likely articulate with greater specificity why they deem some evidence persuasive and other evidence untrustworthy—particularly when omissions in standardized forms collide with affirmative testimony, DOT classifications, or medical opinions. Claimants and employers alike should heed the court’s message: evidentiary gaps on paper do not automatically outweigh real-world facts. The BLBA’s humanitarian purpose demands nothing less than transparent administrative justice.

Note: Because the opinion is unpublished, it is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit, but it may be cited for its persuasive reasoning under local court rules.