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 under the Black Lung Benefits Act. In 2005, Arch sold Apogee and its associated liabilities to Magnum Coal, which was later acquired by Patriot Coal. When Patriot filed for bankruptcy in 2015, the Department of Labor issued guidance holding Arch liable as the responsible insurer for black lung claims that accrued while Arch owned and self-insured Apogee. The miners in these cases applied for benefits between 2015 and 2017. Administrative law judges and the Benefits Review Board affirmed the district directors' decisions that Arch was liable, rejecting Arch's argument that the 2005 sale relieved it of the obligation. Arch then petitioned the Sixth Circuit for review.
The Sixth Circuit reviews the Benefits Review Board's legal conclusions de novo. The petitioners argued that the Board erred in holding Arch liable for benefits owed by Apogee. However, the court noted that Arch and Apogee conceded that the arguments they are making here are the very same arguments, based on materially identical facts, that the court rejected in a published decision from two years ago, Apogee Coal Co., LLC v. Director, OWCP (Howard), 112 F.4th 343 (6th Cir. 2024). The court emphasized that under the principle of panel binding precedent, that prior published decision binds this panel. Consequently, the court found it had no discretion to grant relief and was required to deny the petitions.
The denial of the petitions for review leaves the Benefits Review Board's order in place, requiring Arch Resources to pay the black lung benefits to the individual respondents. The decision reinforces the stability of the black lung benefits system by preventing the shifting of liabilities to the federal government through bankruptcy proceedings when a parent company self-insured a subsidiary. No new legal doctrine was established; the ruling simply applies existing precedent to prevent relitigation of settled issues.