This consolidated case involves miners who worked for Apogee Coal Company in Kentucky during the 1990s. At that time, Apogee was a subsidiary of Arch Resources, Inc. Instead of purchasing commercial insurance, Arch self-insured Apogee against black lung claims. In 2005, Arch sold Apogee, along with its black lung liabilities, to Magnum Coal. Three years later, Patriot Coal acquired Magnum and its subsidiaries. When Patriot went bankrupt in 2015, the Department of Labor issued instructions holding Arch liable as the responsible insurer for black lung claims against Apogee that accrued while Arch owned and self-insured the company. The miners in these cases applied for benefits between 2015 and 2017. Administrative law judges and the Benefits Review Board affirmed the Department of Labor's decisions, naming Apogee the responsible operator and Arch the responsible insurer. Arch appealed, arguing that the 2005 sale relieved it of the obligation to pay benefits.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed the Benefits Review Board's legal conclusions de novo. The court noted that Arch and Apogee conceded that they were making the very same arguments, based on materially identical facts, that the court had rejected in a published decision two years prior, Apogee Coal Co. v. Director, OWCP (Howard), 112 F.4th 343 (6th Cir. 2024). The court emphasized that under the law of the circuit, that prior published decision binds the panel. Because the arguments and facts were identical to those already resolved, the court found no basis to grant relief. The court stated, 'As Arch and Apogee recognize, that decision binds us here.' Consequently, the court denied the petitions for review.
The decision confirms that Arch Resources must pay the awarded black lung benefits to the individual respondents, despite having sold Apogee years earlier. The ruling reinforces the Department of Labor's authority to hold parent companies liable for self-insured liabilities of their subsidiaries when those subsidiaries are sold and later go bankrupt. There are no unresolved factual questions in this specific instance, as the court relied on the binding precedent of the Howard decision to deny relief.