Skip to main content

Maxine Livermore v. Amax Coal Company, and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

7th CircuitJuly 25, 2002No. 01-3986Cited 7 times
Defendant WinAmax Coal Company
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Flaum, Bauer, Ripple
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court affirmed the ALJ's denial of black lung benefits to the widow, finding that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the miner's death was not caused by or substantially contributed to by pneumoconiosis, despite the miner having clinical pneumoconiosis.

What This Ruling Means

**Coal Miner's Widow Denied Black Lung Benefits** Maxine Livermore sued Amax Coal Company and the Department of Labor after being denied black lung benefits following her husband's death. She argued that her husband, a coal miner, died from pneumoconiosis (black lung disease) caused by years of coal dust exposure at work. The coal company and government disputed this, claiming his death was not caused by the lung disease. The court sided with the coal company and government, upholding an earlier decision to deny benefits. Although medical evidence showed the miner had clinical pneumoconiosis, the court found there wasn't enough proof that the disease actually caused or significantly contributed to his death. The judges determined that substantial evidence supported this conclusion. This ruling matters for workers because it shows how difficult it can be to prove that workplace exposure caused a death, even when the disease is present. Coal miners' families seeking black lung benefits must demonstrate not just that their loved one had the disease, but that it actually caused or substantially contributed to the death. This sets a high bar for families trying to obtain these crucial benefits after losing a breadwinner to occupational illness.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.