Consolidation Coal Company v. DOWCP

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 24, 2023
• Docket: 21-2331
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2331 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2331

CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARMENT OF LABOR; JAMES E. PATTERSON,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (2020-0383 BLA)

Submitted: July 17, 2023 Decided: July 24, 2023

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: William S. Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Petitioner. Sean Gregory Bajkowski, William M. Bush, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2331 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Consolidation Coal Company (Employer) petitions for review of the Benefits

Review Board’s (BRB) decision and order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s

(ALJ) denial of Employer’s request for modification of an earlier award of black lung

benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944. Our review of the BRB’s decision 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.” Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Stallard, 876 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2017)

(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 his rationale in crediting certain evidence.” Hobet Mining, LLC v. Epling, 783

F.3d 498, 504 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Our review of the record discloses that the BRB’s decision is based upon substantial

evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for

the reasons stated by the BRB. Patterson v. Consolidation Coal Co., No. 20-0383 BLA

(BRB Sept. 29, 2021). 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