Cedar Coal Company v. Noel Holcomb

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 10, 2023
• Docket: 22-1172
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1172 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/10/2023 Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1172

CEDAR COAL COMPANY,

Petitioner,

and

AMERICAN ELECTRIC CORPORATION,

v.

NOEL HOLCOMB; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (20-0517 BLA)

Submitted: May 30, 2023 Decided: August 10, 2023

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Mark J. Grigoraci, ROBINSON & MCELWEE, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Timothy C. MacDonnell, Lane David, Advanced Administrative Litigation Clinic, WASHINTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, USCA4 Appeal: 22-1172 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/10/2023 Pg: 2 of 5

Lexington, Virginia, for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1172 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/10/2023 Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:

Cedar Coal Company (“Employer”) petitions this court for review of the Benefits

Review Board’s (BRB) decision affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) award

of benefits to Noel Holcomb (“Claimant”) under the Black Lung Benefits Act. Employer

contends that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s conclusions that Claimant

established that he had legal pneumoconiosis and that coal mine dust caused his

pneumoconiosis.

Our review of the BRB’s decision upholding an award of benefits is limited to

considering “whether substantial evidence supports the factual findings of the ALJ and

whether the legal conclusions of the [BRB] and ALJ are rational and consistent with

applicable law.” W. Va. CWP Fund v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 880 F.3d

691, 697 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence is more

than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept

as adequate to support a conclusion.” Sea “B” Mining Co. v. Addison, 831 F.3d 244, 252

(4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To determine whether this standard

has been met, we consider whether all of the relevant evidence has been analyzed and

whether the ALJ has sufficiently explained h[er] rationale in crediting certain evidence.”

Hobet Mining, LLC v. Epling, 783 F.3d 498, 504 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks

omitted). “We review the legal conclusions of the [BRB] and the ALJ de novo.” Harman

Mining Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 678 F.3d 305, 310 (4th Cir. 2012).

To receive benefits under the Act, Claimant had to prove that (1) he has

pneumoconiosis (i.e., black lung disease); (2) it arose from his coal mine employment; (3)

3 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1172 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/10/2023 Pg: 4 of 5

he has a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment; and (4) his pneumoconiosis

contributes to his disabling impairment. See Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Stallard, 876 F.3d

663, 667 (4th Cir. 2017); 20 C.F.R. §§ 718.202, 718.203, 718.204, 725.202(d). A miner

can demonstrate that he suffers from either clinical pneumoconiosis or legal

pneumoconiosis. Westmoreland Coal Co., 876 F.3d at 667. Legal pneumoconiosis is a

classification that includes “any chronic lung disease or impairment” arising out of coal

mining employment. 20 C.F.R. § 718.201(a); see Sea “B” Mining Co., 831 F.3d at 248.

The regulations provide that “arising out of coal mining employment includes any chronic

pulmonary disease or respiratory or pulmonary impairment significantly related to, or

substantially aggravated by, dust exposure in coal mine employment.” 20 C.F.R.

§ 718.201(b). A miner is considered totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis if the

pneumoconiosis “is a substantially contributing cause of the miner’s totally disabling

respiratory or pulmonary impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 718.204(c)(1).

Employer contends that the ALJ’s conclusion that Claimant established legal

pneumoconiosis is undermined by the ALJ’s analysis of the medical evidence submitted.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the ALJ adequately analyzed the medical

evidence and explained her reasoning in crediting and discrediting certain portions of it,

and that her conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. ∗ Next, Employer argues

that the ALJ’s conclusion that a causal relationship exists between pneumoconiosis and

∗ Because we conclude that the ALJ’s conclusion on legal pneumoconiosis is supported by substantial evidence, we do not address Employer’s contention that Claimant failed to establish clinical pneumoconiosis.

4 USCA4 Appeal: 22-1172 Doc: 28 Filed: 08/10/2023 Pg: 5 of 5

coal mine employment is not supported by substantial evidence. However, our review of

the record reflects that the ALJ’s conclusion is also supported by substantial evidence on

this point.

Accordingly, we deny Employer’s petition for review. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED