![](\"https:\/\/www.insurancejournal.com\/app\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Coal-rail-cars-Adobe-580x387.jpeg\")
<\/p>\nA federal appeals court, one step below the U.S. Supreme Court, handed down two rulings in favor of employers and insurers, one involving black lung and one regarding a black delivery driver.<\/p>\n
In Keith McKnight vs. United Parcel Service<\/em>, the U.S. 11th<\/sup> Circuit Court of Appeals found that a lower court did not abuse its discretion when it barred the testimony of a McKnight witness. The opinion lets stand a federal jury\u2019s verdict in central Florida, which found that UPS did not retaliate against the driver.<\/p>\n McKnight, a driver at UPS\u2019 Kissimmee Center in 2017, alleged that a newly installed manager had unfairly scrutinized his work practices and had discriminated against him. McKnight filed some 2,000 complaints, and co-workers warned that he appeared to have mental health issues, the court explained. He was terminated in 2022 and he filed suit, alleging retaliation and violations of Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil Rights Act.<\/p>\n The district court judge excluded a co-worker\u2019s testimony, finding it to be unreliable. The jury found in favor of UPS and noted that McKnight had failed to prove UPS had terminated him improperly. The appeals court agreed.<\/p>\n \u201cBecause we cannot conclude that the exclusion of Longest\u2019s (the co-worker\u2019s) testimony affected McKnight\u2019s substantial rights, he is not entitled to a reversal,\u201d the 11th<\/sup> Circuit panel of judges wrote in the opinion<\/a>.<\/p>\n In a second decision this week, the appeals court found that the federal Benefits Review Board was in error when it decided that a longtime coal-operation railroad worker in Alabama was eligible for black lung benefits.<\/p>\n Billie Barr Jr. worked for years as a railroad engineer, transporting coal from an underground mine in north Alabama. Later, when the mine closed, he worked at a preparation plant. The courts agreed that he was regularly exposed to coal dust for years, and that he was forced to use oxygen after he developed respiratory problems.<\/p>\n After Barr died, his widow filed a claim for survivor\u2019s benefits under the federal workers\u2019 compensation program. An administrative law judge denied the claim, noting that Barr had not worked 15 years in an underground coal mine, as required by federal benefits law.<\/p>\n The Benefits Review Board reversed that decision, finding that the preparation plant was appurtenant to the mine, connected by a miles-long conveyor belt. But on appeal by Fairfield Southern Co., the 11th<\/sup> Circuit panel of judges overruled the board. The appeals court noted that Barr\u2019s above-ground work would qualify for a presumption that the operation caused his disease, but the statutory definition of a coal mine requires that the prepartion plant and mine be within five miles of each other.<\/p>\n The appeals court remanded the case to the review board for further proceedings. The opinion can be seen here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Top photo: AdobeStock<\/em><\/p>\n Topics<\/span> Trends<\/a> <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n Was this article valuable?<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n