Workers’ Compensation · Primary-source case analysis

Greenwich Collieries: The Claimant Bears the Burden of Persuasion When Compensation Evidence Is Even

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 27, 2026

Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries resolved how an evidentiary tie must be treated in federal Black Lung and Longshore Act benefit proceedings governed by the Administrative Procedure Act.

The true-doubt rule favored the claimant in equipoise

Under the agency’s rule, a claimant prevailed when equally probative evidence supported and opposed entitlement. That rule affected the ultimate risk of nonpersuasion rather than merely the order of producing evidence.

The APA uses burden of proof to mean persuasion

Section 556(d) assigns the burden of proof to the proponent of an order. Reading the phrase in its traditional adjudicatory sense, the Court held that it includes the burden of persuasion.

A remedial statute did not authorize an evidentiary tie-breaker

The policies favoring compensation claimants could not displace the allocation Congress supplied through the APA. When the evidence is evenly balanced, the claimant has not carried the statutory burden.

The holding applies to the covered federal schemes

Greenwich Collieries addresses adjudications governed by the APA, including the federal statutes before the Court. State workers’ compensation presumptions and proof rules must be analyzed under their own statutes.

Key takeaways

• Identify the party seeking the compensation order.
• Separate the burden of production from the burden of persuasion.
• Evaluate whether the governing scheme incorporates the APA.
• Do not import the federal holding into a state system without checking its statute.