"Black Lung"
Medical Fact
vs
Congress and Courts

Cigarettes have a record of adulteration. Tobacco smoke contains vast quantities of toxic chemicals.

So by 1836, pursuant to doctor's centuries of experience analyzing causation data, it was well-established "that thousands and tens of thousands die of diseases of the lungs generally brought on by tobacco smoking. . . . How is it possible to be otherwise? Tobacco is a poison. A man will die of an infusion of tobacco as of a shot through the head." —Samuel Green, New England Almanack and Farmer's Friend (1836). You read the year right, 1836.

In addition, we know that cigarette smoking leads to lung cancer, a fact being reported even in the 1920's.

The question arises, who should pay the costs for the resultant lung disease? The taxpayers perhaps?!!

Now, you are honest, and wouldn't think that is right. You know that re other killers, the killer pays! Or goes to prison! Or both.

But then you are not a Congressman! Pretend that you are drunk, having a great time with a $200 an hour whore, and taking bribes from sleaze who want the taxpayers to pay! Now what's your opinion? A big change, huh!! Let the taxpayer suckers and public pay, hush, hush. So you make that the law. And we have to accept that, or go to prison!!

You say, 'judges are honest, they'll protect us from such abuses. They know the law says, no practicing medicine without a license!!'

Yeah, right!! That law means you and me, not congressmen! Judges, the exact same kind of people as congressmen, suck up to them, like a whore to her pimp.

You have heard of so-called "Black Lung Disease" caused by that awful coal mining! Yeah, right!! Well, that's the medical opinion of Congress!

Congress passed a taxpayer ripoff act, 30 USC § 901, § 902, and § 903, to pay smokers for their lung conditions—as long as they SAY (with or without a straight face!) that coal mining did it to them!! That's Congress' medical opinion.

So Congress created a bureaucratic nonsense group, the Black Lung Agency, to feed at the trough, and pass out our money to smokers! Oh yes, the BLA types get to junket and retire at our expense!

Of course, the same type of Congress says it'd be wrong to have tobacco companies pay for the costs of the tobacco-caused conditions. It's much better to have the taxpayers pay!! You see, we little people taxpayers don't BUY our Congressmen. We, naively, think they'll be honest! Hah, hah!

In Congress' medical opinion, coal causes lung disease! What do doctors say? You and I, if we are sick, we don't ask our drunk, whore-buying Congressman for his medical opinion. We want our results done by a doctor! Doctors went to medical school, served as residents, studied long and hard, have years or decades of experience (the profession itself has centuries of experience), and might actually know more about the subject!!

So let's see what doctors tell each other on the "black lung" subject. Let's read some medical journal data on so-called "black lung disease" from doctors:

"The Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977 awards compensation for pulmonary disability incurred as a consequence of employment as a coal miner. . . . administration of the act . . . often results in an unfair and inequitable distribution of public funds. Assessing disability by symptom and measures of pulmonary function is not easy and often results in erroneous judgements. Disability, even when it exists, is rarely caused by coal particles alone but is usually the result of other factors such as cigarette smoking, which results in emphysema."—William R. Barclay, M.D., "Black Lung Benefits," Vol 243, J. Am. Med Assoc'n (Issue 23), p 2427 (20 June 1980).

Dr. Barclay says, "Of all those eligible [to apply] . . . only those who have smoked cigarettes, as well as mined coal, will qualify when subjected to rigorous pulmonary function testing. Thus the taxpayers will be penalized twice; first in subsidizing those who grow tobacco and then in compensating coal miners who smoke tobacco."

Notice that. "Only smokers" get so-called "black lung."

Dr. Barclay, who is not a whore-buying Congressman, says that "unless sound and honest scientific judgment prevails over the wish to be a kindly benefactor, one more improper drain on the public treasury will take place. Like so many acts of Congress that shower benefits on special group, the black lung act cannot easily be repealed or amended."

Nonsmoking miners don't get "black lung"! Coal exposure "is not associated with a a clinically notable decline in ventilatory capacity, and is therefore most unlikely to lead to respiratory disability."—W. Keith C. Morgan, M.D., "Respiratory Disease in Coal Miners," Vol 231, J. Am. Med. Assoc'n (Issue 13), pp 1347-1348 (31 March 1975).

People who use medical libraries know that. I have never seen one Congressman there in my decades at the medical library! They arranged the secret $$$$$$$$ handouts in defiance of the medical facts linking smoking and lung disease, facts known since 1836.

The secret handouts of money rendered the sad commentary (by Drs. Barclay and Morgan) especially true in the era before the Internet. Corrupt decisions, while technically "public," were and are hidden behind obscure case and reference number codes and inside massive numbers of cryptically titled volumes, which once opened, are helter-skelter, unsorted, just slopped together with multiple decisions on other subjects, not in the rational manner of legitimate reference books, and are written in legalese.

But nowadays, large numbers of court decisions are being posted on the Internet. This whistle blower found sources posting vast numbers of such decisions, and laboriously went through them. Here are some "black lung" decisions, summarized, or at least listed, with a link to the source with the text so you can read the entire decisions yourself. Please do read them all.

THE TOP THREE MOST
OUTRAGEOUS CASES

Gulf & Western Indus v Ling, Dir, OWCP, Court Case No. 97-2107, F3d (CA 4, 13 March 1999), on appeal from BLA's decision 95-1021-BLA. The Black Lung Agency's idea regarding smoking as the real cause of condition, is, 'so what?, it's only money, approve the claim anyway'!! The joke's on the taxpayers!

Warth v Southern Ohio Coal Co and Dir, OWCP, Court Case 94-2635pv2, 60 F3d 173 (CA 4, Ohio, 31 July 1995). The courts are just as contemptuous. The court gives the medical opinion of Congress and BLA regulation writers greater priority and weight than the smoker's examining physician who was honestly insisting that the real cause of the smoker's condition was smoking!! Said the Court, 'Congress and the BLA, in their medical opinion, don't agree with the doctor, and that ends that!! Shut up, doctor.'

Bradberry v Director, Case No. 95-6900 (CA 11, 29 July 1997), on appeal from BLA's decision 93-2440-BLA. This case involved a 60 year smoker. Doctors (experienced at causation analysis) have known, since at least 1836, that smoking hastens death! Of course, judges (are they bribed?) don't make much mention of that fact when the case is against some tobacco company! But just wait, watch a claim filed for so-called 'black lung.' Oops, say the judges, the smoking isn't the controlling issue in hastening death! It's that awful coal! That must be what's "hastening death," case remanded. Keep some government workers on the rolls to analyze that! and spout off their nonsense unlicensed medical opinions! And then give them a big pension after years of doing such "work"!! Hey, hire some more!

More Cases, With Links To Full Text

Assoc. Electric v Dir, OWCP, Case No. 95-1645 (CA 8, 19 Jan 1996) (black lung case, 15-20 year smoker)

Blakley, Widow v Amax Coal Co and Dir, OWCP, Case 94-2169, 54 F3d 1313 (CA 7, 25 May 1995) (black lung case, smoker 45 years, miner 21 years, claim denied, but a big cost in just the process occurring)

Clinchfield Coal Co v Fuller and OWCP, Case No. 98-1949, F3d (CA 4, 25 June 1999) (smoker black lung case, award vacated, but a big cost in just the process occurring)

Consolidation Coal Co v McMahon, Dir, OWCP, Case No. 95-3005 (CA 6, 11 March 1996) (black lung case, 29 year miner, smoking began in 1946, now 5 packs a day, case remanded, more expense for us to pay)

DeHue Coal Co v Ballard, Dir, OWCP, Case 94-2369, 65 F3d 1189 (CA 4, West Virginia, 25 Sep 1995) (black lung case by 16 year miner, 30 year smoker, with lung cancer, claim denied, though no reimbursement for the processing cost). SCB: 93-1765-BLA

Doss v Dir, Office of Workers' Comp Programs, Case 94-1399, 53 F3d 654 (CA 4, West Virginia, 18 May 1995) (black lung case, 25 year smoker, 12 years in mining)

Glen Coal Co and Old Republic Ins Co v Jess Seals and Dir, OWCP, U.S. Dep't of Labor, Case No. 96-4121, F3d (CA 6, 24 June 1998). SCB: No. 92-1887 BLA (background on the law and Congress' medical opinion that doctors don't really know the answers! -- after all, doctors have only four centuries of experience analyzing data!, whereas some drunk, whore-buying Congressman has just been with some lobbyist a few minutes before he votes! so is a far more expert medical authority!!)

Griffith v Dir, OWCP, Dept of Labor, 917 F2d 24; Case No. 90-3160, 1990 WL 164635 (CA 6, 29 Oct 1990) (50 year smoker, 14 year miner, black lung case, remanded for administrative reconsideration, at more expense to us), on remand, 49 F3d 184, Case No. 93-4171 (CA 6, 14 Feb 1995) (i.e., twice all the way through the system and back to the court of Appeals!)

Milburn Colliery Co v Hicks and Dir, OWCP, Case 96-2438, 138 F3d 524 (CA 4, D West Virginia, 6 March 1998) (black lung case, 40 year miner, 45 year smoker). SCB: 96-494-BLA

Peabody Coal Co v Hill, Case 97-0248, 123 F3d 412 (CA 6, Kentucky, 8 Aug 1997) (smoker, 37 year miner, black lung case)

Peabody Coal Co v Hill, Case No. 96-3556, 1997 FED App 0248P (6th Cir) F3d (CA 6, 18 Aug 1997) (another smoker black lung case)

Peabody Coal Co v Smith, Case No. 96-3598, F3d (CA 6, 7 Oct 1997) (another smoker black lung case). SCB: 95-0383 BLA

Peabody Coal Co and Old Republic Ins Co v Dir, Office of Workers' Comp, Case No. 97-3721 (CA 7, 20 Jan 1999) (smoker black lung case, in processing since 1975, oh, that must be cheap, for a mere 24 years to keep reviewing and reviewing and reviewing and reviewing the same case over and over, what a boondoggle for some sleazy bureaucrats!). SCB: 94-BLA-2696

R&H Steel Buildings, Inc v Dir, Office of Workers' Comp, et al, Case 97-3409 (CA 7, 16 June 1998) (smoker black lung case, re tobacco-induced lung cancer, heart attack and/or stroke as real cause of death)

Stiltner v Island Creek Coal Co and Dir, OWCP, 86 F3d 337 (CA 4, West Virginia, 7 June 1996) (black lung case, miner 40 years, 37 year smoker)

Van Dyke, Bernice v Dir, OWCP and Missouri Mining, Inc, Case No. 95-2259 (CA 8, 7 March 1996) (black lung case, by widow of 30 year smoker, 27 year miner, denied, fortunately)

Now some of you might think that this nonsense would be stopped by the Supreme Court. After all, surely somebody fought this boondoggle to the Supreme Court, right? And they deemed the law unconstitutional nonsense, and stuck it down, and got the BLA closed! so we don't have to pay for more so-called case-processing on and on. After all, even if 100% of all claims were denied, there'd still be the vast and unncessary cost of having all those bureaucrats and judges being hired to make those massive, time-consuming reviews!

So the Supreme Court saved us, and got the BLA closed! Let's check. Here is the case citation, volume and page!: Pauley v Bethenergy Mines, 501 US 680; 111 S Ct 2524; 115 L Ed 2d 604 (24 June 1991). Read it! Did the Supreme Court end the nonsense program? Or just wander off on some tangent!

Oh, did I mention that the Supreme Court is that bunch of sleaze that upheld mass bribery of politicians, and said that perjury is ok in court, when it's for the government side? Oops, I guess I forgot to mention those cases! Fletcher v Peck, 10 US 87; 3 L Ed 162 (bribery, 1810), and Briscoe v LaHue, 460 US 325; 103 S Ct 1108; 75 L Ed 2d 96 (perjury, 1983). For more details, see our bribery exposé site!

Examples of Coal Companies
Trying To Discipline Smokers
To Stop The Problem

        Wisconsin Steel Coal Mines of International Harvester Co v Progressive Mine Workers of America, 76-2 Lab Arb Awards (CCH) § 8348 (1976)

        Consolidation Coal Co, Robinson Run Mine, Jones Run Portal v United Mine Workers of Am, 82-2 Lab Arb Awards (CCH) § 8600 (1982)

You might wonder, who do so few companies try? Well, think about it. Any effort to do so, there's a fight with the union and the government, the National Labor Relations Board, and their pattern of obstructing pro-safety law efforts in this regard. They'll file a case, run up the legal bill. And there is the massive media tobacco taboo preventing truthful data being widely known, even among the company officials themselves.

So due to the tobacco taboo, concepts such as the common law "right to fresh and pure air" which requires "balancing the equities" thus bans smoking on the job are not widely known. And the legal data against hiring smokers in the first place is almost wholly unknown. Worse, there is governmental hostility to disease prevention activity; state legislatures and Congress are generally owned by the tobacco lobby, with the result that cigarette bans such as Iowa's, Tennessee's and Michigan's are rare and, when extant, unenforced.

So it is easier for coal companies to 'go with the flow,' and let the taxpayers subsidize and the public pay the smoker miners' medical bills and premature pensions!

For More Cases and Analyses
Product Liability Cases
Job Related Prevention Cases
Nonsmoker Cases Seeking On-The-Job Prevention
Supreme Court Cases
Federal Appeals Court Cases
Tobacco Increases Risk of Death
Cost Recovery Cases By Health Groups/States,
Oh, Those Mostly Get Turned Down, It's
Mostly Us Taxpayers Who Have To Pay!
List of All Tobacco Cases
Reminder, Read The Bribery Site
Cases Where Smokers Try to Get
The Pushers to Pay, Oh, Those Mostly
Get Turned Down, Mostly Us Taxpayers Pay!
Link To Home Page

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
WRITE LETTERS SEEKING REPEAL
OF THE BLACK LUNG PROGRAM

President George W. BushU.S. Senator _______U.S. Representative __Governor __ State Senator _State Representative _
1600 Pennsylvania AvenueSenate Office BuildingHouse Office BuildingState CapitolState CapitolState Capitol
Washington DC 20500Washington DC 20510Washington DC 20515City State ZipCity State ZipCity State Zip

Dear Sir/Ma'am:

         This is a request that you take action to end the "black lung disease" program.

"The Black Lung Benefits Reform Act of 1977 awards compensation for pulmonary disability incurred as a consequence of employment as a coal miner. . . . administration of the act . . . often results in an unfair and inequitable distribution of public funds. Assessing disability by symptom and measures of pulmonary function is not easy and often results in erroneous judgements. Disability, even when it exists, is rarely caused by coal particles alone but is usually the result of other factors such as cigarette smoking, which results in emphysema."—William R. Barclay, M.D., "Black Lung Benefits," Vol 243, Journal of the American Medical Assoc'n (Issue 23), p 2427 (20 June 1980).

Dr. Barclay says, "Of all those eligible [to apply] . . . only those who have smoked cigarettes, as well as mined coal, will qualify when subjected to rigorous pulmonary function testing. Thus the taxpayers will be penalized twice; first in subsidizing those who grow tobacco and then in compensating coal miners who smoke tobacco."

Notice that. "Only smokers" get so-called "black lung."

Dr. Barclay says that "unless sound and honest scientific judgment prevails over the wish to be a kindly benefactor, one more improper drain on the public treasury will take place. Like so many acts of Congress that shower benefits on special group, the black lung act cannot easily be repealed or amended."

Nonsmoking miners don't get "black lung"! Coal exposure "is not associated with a a clinically notable decline in ventilatory capacity, and is therefore most unlikely to lead to respiratory disability."—W. Keith C. Morgan, M.D., "Respiratory Disease in Coal Miners," Vol 231, Journal of the American Medical Assoc'n (Issue 13), pp 1347-1348 (31 March 1975).

Wherefore, please take action to immediately end the "black lung" program. And require that tobacco companies pay for the consequences they cause.

Furthermore, to prevent tobacco-induced lung disease, please take action to ban unsafe cigarettes. Require that cigarettes, to be sold, must be like all other products, safe for foreseeable use. Michigan already has such a law. It is law number MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216.

If you are unfamiliar with that excellent law, please get a copy of it. It in essence forbids "any person within the state" from action that "manufactures, sells or gives to anyone, any cigarette containing any ingredient deleterious to health or foreign to tobacco . . . ."

         All cigarettes are deleterious, their label admits they are, and most if not all are adulterated with additives. Michigan's well-written law puts personal responsibility on those with most knowledge of the contraband substance (manufacturers and sellers who know it leads to disease), not on unwary consumers, often children.

         Please take action to get a safe-cigarettes law adopted. Please take action to copy the Michigan act, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, so all of us can benefit from its wise prevention-oriented approach.

Respectfully,

Example Asbestosis Cases

Jones v Owens-Corning Fiberglas, Case 94-1861, 69 F3d 712 (CA 4, ED North Carolina, 3 Nov 1995) (c) (smoker claim re asbestosis and lung cancer) http://laws.findlaw.com/uscircs/4th/941861p.html

Buckley v Metro-North Commuter R.R., Case No. 95-7399 (CA 2, SD NY, 1 April 1996) (s) (smoker asbestosis case, standard is "increased risk"; quantities to which exposed were concealed) http://laws.findlaw.com/uscircs/2nd/57399.html

Bath Iron Works v Dept of Labor, Case No. 96-2163 (CA 1, 6 March 1998) (s) (asbestosis case by 32 year smoker) http://laws.findlaw.com/uscircs/1st/962163.html

See also
  • Nawaday, Kan M., "Apportioning asbestos-tobacco liability in Falise v. American Tobacco," Cornell Law Review (05/01/2003)
  • "Asbestos" (Encyclopedia.com) .

    • Discussion Group: More Participants Welcome

    Email@lpletten

    Copyright © 1999 Leroy J. Pletten