Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), said, "The new rules represent a step forward--albeit a modest one--in easing the claims process for persons afflicted with black lung disease." He added, "While these changes do not go as far as we might have liked, we welcome any positive movement that helps level the playing field."

The coal operators vigorously oppose the changes. Through the National Mining Association, they filed a legal challenge to the new rules. The bosses' association called the rules "unnecessary, costly" and claim they "ignore science" and "place miners' jobs in jeopardy." The bosses say the regulations will result in future costs ranging from $3.3 billion to $7.2 billion and "will result in closure of many of the nation's small mines."

Black lung, or coal miners' pneumoco-nio-sis, is caused by breathing in coal dust. While there is no cure, black lung can be eliminated through proper air ventilation, water sprays to reduce dust, and use of respirators. Roughly 1,500 workers a year die from this occupational disease.

The UMWA has pressed for changes in the regulations because of how few of those seeking benefits are able to win them. After the 1969 black lung strike, the Coal Act, which helps guarantee the funds needed to cover miners' lifetime health care, was passed. In the early 1970s, about 70 percent of miners with black lung claims received compensation. The law was amended in 1981, and in the last 10 years less than 10 percent of those who have applied have won benefits. After a new workers compensation law was passed in Kentucky, the level there dropped below 1 percent.

The main gain for miners and their dependents through the new regulations is that, in a disputed claim, the number of medical reports that can be filed by either side is limited to two. Until now there was no limit to the number of such reports that could be filed. Roberts pointed out, "Right now it is virtually impossible for the average black lung victim to spend the money the company shells out to dispute these claims. Most victims become frustrated, or broke, trying to do so."

The new regulations also assist miners by placing more emphasis on their treating physicians' opinions, and affirm that black lung disease progresses with age.

Fred Cox, director of Tug River Health Association, points out that the rules "are not opening doors to be compensated, it represents a slight loosening of the regulations and carry some pitfalls." He explained that "many coal miners experience respiratory problems, but frequently do not seek medical attention. Under these rules, not seeking medical attention can be hurtful to the miner."

Sparkle Bonds, a staff person with the Virginia Black Lung Association, said she was disappointed that the changes did not include reducing the disability requirement for pulmonary function. She also noted that under the current law it is difficult to win a widow's claim, since one has to establish that the disease was a major cause of death.

The UMWA is organizing meetings to explain the new regulations. Around 150 miners, black lung activists, and health-care professionals from West Virginia, Virginia, and Kentucky attended one held in Charleston, West Virginia, January 12. A further explanation is scheduled for Uniontown, Pennsylvania, at 10:00 a.m. on February 9 at the local Holiday Inn.

Articles published in the Roanoke Times November 24 and 25 documented many of the problems miners and their dependents face today in battling to get benefits for black lung. Headlines in the articles include, "A coalfield legacy: black lung. As court battles for disability benefits drag on, miners slowly suffocate," and "30 years after new safety laws, black lung still runs rampant."

One miner quoted in the newspaper explained how he had his benefits granted temporarily by the Department of Labor, but when the coal company appealed, an administrative law judge from the Labor Department denied his benefits. "I couldn't afford to hire any experts to counter the number of experts they had," the miner said. Some miners in similar cases were forced to repay tens of thousands of dollars.

Another problem miners face is difficulty in getting lawyers to take a black lung case because the lawyer can only receive compensation if the miner wins the case. One miner had gone through four attorneys in his decades-long fight to gain benefits.

For another miner it took 14 years to get the company to pay. He said he never doubted he had black lung. "I reckon I made up my mind that I was going to go to my grave fighting," he said. "I didn't have anything to lose."

A miner who had his benefits denied on appeal by the companies was found after his death to have coal dust deposits and lesions in his lungs. His widow sought benefits. Medical experts for the company now admitted that the miner had black lung but said the disease had not contributed to his death. One claimed he "would have died on the same day, in the same manner, if he'd never set foot in a coal mine." His widow explained, "I was there every day with him and watched what it did. You had to be there to know."

In addition to the foot-dragging on improving the laws affecting black lung victims, action to prevent the disease has been slow. Because of the many cases of coal operators cheating, the Mine Safety and Health Administration said it was going to take over dust sampling in the mines, but that has yet to happen. Last year a contractor for Eastern Associated Coal Corp. was charged in a district court in Charleston, West Virginia, with 18 counts of faking dust samples in 1997 and 1998.

At the same time as proposing the government take over dust monitoring, the Labor Department proposed new rules covering allowable dust levels. At hearings organized by the department across the coalfields, hundreds of miners spoke out against the proposed rules, calling for lower limits on dust levels and pointing to other problems with the rules, particularly as they apply to longwall mining.

Tony Lane is a member of United Mine Workers of America Local 1248 in southwestern Pennsylvania.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home