Skip to main content

Lurlie Ramey v. Director, Office Of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department Of Labor

4th CircuitApril 14, 2003No. 02-1630Cited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

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 Fourth Circuit affirmed the Benefits Review Board's decision invalidating the settlement agreement between Charles Ramey and Triple R Coal Company, holding that the Black Lung Benefits Act prohibits settlement of black lung benefit claims.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Blocks Coal Miner's Settlement Under Black Lung Law** This case involved a settlement agreement between a coal miner named Charles Ramey and his former employer, Triple R Coal Company, regarding black lung benefits. Ramey had developed black lung disease (pneumoconiosis) from years of coal dust exposure and reached a private settlement with the company over his compensation claim. However, the court ruled against allowing this settlement to stand. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by the Benefits Review Board that invalidated the agreement between Ramey and Triple R Coal Company. The court determined that the Black Lung Benefits Act specifically prohibits workers from settling their black lung benefit claims through private agreements with employers. This ruling matters significantly for coal miners and other workers with occupational lung diseases. While it may seem limiting that workers cannot negotiate their own settlements, the court's decision actually protects miners' rights. The Black Lung Benefits Act was designed to ensure workers receive full, ongoing medical care and compensation for this serious occupational disease. By preventing settlements, the law ensures that miners cannot be pressured into accepting inadequate one-time payments that might leave them without proper long-term care for their condition.

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.