Billie Barr, Jr., a railroad engineer, developed a disabling respiratory condition after working for over fifteen years transporting coal for U.S. Steel and Fairfield Southern Company. His work history included time at an underground mine and later at an aboveground preparation plant connected to a different underground mine, the Oak Grove site, by over five miles of conveyor belts. Barr filed for Black Lung benefits, relying on a statutory presumption that applies to miners who work for fifteen years in one or more underground coal mines. An Administrative Law Judge denied the claim, finding that Barr did not work fifteen years underground due to absences and that the preparation plant was not part of the underground mine because it was too far away. The Benefits Review Board reversed the ALJ, ruling that the plant was 'appurtenant' to the mine based on shared functions and ownership, regardless of the five-mile distance. Fairfield Southern Company petitioned for review, arguing that the Board misinterpreted the statute.
Circuit Judge Brasher, writing for the court, addressed two primary issues. First, the court rejected the argument that aboveground work automatically disqualifies a miner from the presumption. The court joined the Tenth Circuit in holding that the statutory definition of a 'coal mine' includes property placed 'upon, under, or above the surface' of the land. Therefore, an underground coal mine includes aboveground components, and a miner can work 'in' that mine even if their specific tasks occur above ground. The court reasoned that the adjective 'underground' modifies the type of mine, not the specific location of the employee within the mine's boundaries. Second, the court addressed whether the preparation plant was part of the Oak Grove underground mine. The court held that the statutory definition of a 'coal mine' includes structures on a particular 'area of land,' which is geographically bounded. The Benefits Review Board erred by interpreting 'appurtenant' to ignore distance, as that interpretation conflicted with the statute's requirement that structures be on a specific area of land. The court found substantial evidence supported the ALJ's factual finding that the plant and the mine were separated by undeveloped land and were not part of the same geographically bounded area.
The decision clarifies that while aboveground workers at underground mines may qualify for benefits, the facility must be geographically part of the same 'area of land' as the extraction site. The case is remanded to the Benefits Review Board to determine if the preparation plant was substantially similar to an underground mine, an issue the Board did not address in its prior decision. This ruling limits the scope of the presumption for workers at facilities physically separated from the extraction site by significant distances.