⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

Bonnie Owens is defending black lung benefits awarded in connection with her late husband, John Owens, a former coal miner. Lodestar Energy and its insurer, Kentucky Employers' Mutual Insurance, seek to overturn the award. The medical record contained five pulmonary function studies, or breathing tests. Three earlier studies met the regulatory disability criteria; the two later studies did not. How to weigh those conflicting results drives this appeal. The administrative law judge initially denied benefits. The Benefits Review Board sent the case back because the judge had relied on the newer tests without adequately explaining his treatment of the earlier evidence. On remand, meaning reconsideration after that return, he awarded benefits. The Board affirmed, and the employer now seeks review in the Sixth Circuit. Total disability here concerns a breathing impairment that prevents the miner's usual coal mine work or comparable work. A qualifying breathing test meets regulatory thresholds; a non-qualifying result does not, by itself, establish that the miner is healthy. Medical opinions can also support a disability finding. That question is distinct from what caused the impairment. The law calls chronic lung disease caused or substantially aggravated by coal mine dust pneumoconiosis. With at least fifteen years of underground or similarly dusty surface mining and a totally disabling breathing impairment, a miner can invoke a rebuttable presumption that the disability was due to pneumoconiosis. That makes the initial disability finding especially important. You will hear repeated references to Woodward, a case about conflicting chest X-rays. It rejects choosing evidence simply because it is newer, or counting readings without evaluating their quality. The employer will argue that breathing function can improve and that the judge wrongly thought he could not consider the tests' timing. A footnote in his decision says he felt constrained. The widow will defend the judge's overall assessment, rather than treating the newer results as automatically controlling. The court must distinguish a legal error from a permissible weighing of evidence. Tighe Estes will argue for the employer and insurer.

Lodestar Energy, Inc. v. OWCP, et al. (No. 25-3840) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, argued October 20, 2026.