Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Pauley v. Bethenergy Mines, Inc.

United States Supreme Court
501 U.S. 680 (1991)


Facts

A federal statutory program provided benefits for coal miners disabled by black-lung disease. Originally, the program was administered by the federal Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). The statute that transferred the program from the HEW to the federal Department of Labor (DOL) specified that the DOL's program regulations must be no more restrictive than the HEW's regulations. Both the HEW and the DOL allowed an employer to rebut the presumption that an employee was entitled to benefits. However, unlike the HEW, the DOL allowed a rebuttal based on an employer's showing that the employee's disability was not connected with coal mining. The DOL interpreted this new basis for rebuttal as no more restrictive than the HEW's regulations and, therefore, in compliance with the statute. Bethenergy Mines, Inc. (Bethenergy) (defendant) relied on the DOL's interpretation to contend that Bethenergy's employee, John Pauley (plaintiff), was not entitled to program benefits because Pauley's disability was not connected with coal mining. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Scalia, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.