Central Ohio Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the administrative law judge didn’t err by rejecting a physician’s opinion on the ground that it had conflated clinical and legal pneumoconiosis
• finding that a doctor’s opinion a lung-function test could distinguish between COPD caused by inhaling coal dust versus smoking cigarettes contradicted the preamble
• finding that a doctor’s opinion a lung-function test could distinguish between COPD caused by inhaling coal dust versus smoking cigarettes contradicted the preamble
• “ALJ appropriately declined to credit Dr. Rosenberg’s medical opinion because it was inconsistent with the DOL’s position”
• “Central Ohio did not raise this issue in its briefs, and accordingly it has forfeited the argument.”
• “In short, Dr. Rosenberg suggests that, contrary to DOL’s purportedly oversimplistic definition, there may be forms of COPD that, are not correlated with a reduced FEVl/FVC ratio, and those forms of COPD are much more likely to be associated with coal-dust exposure.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).