Deborah Halstead v. DOWCP

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: August 20, 2025
• Docket: 24-1543
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1543 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/20/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1543

DEBORAH HALSTEAD, Executrix of the Estate of Maxine Hudson, Widow of Charles Hudson,

Petitioner,

v.

DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; PEABODY COAL COMPANY, LLC; PEABODY INVESTMENTS, INC.,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (2018-BLA-05008)

Submitted: April 16, 2025 Decided: August 20, 2025

Before QUATTLEBAUM, RUSHING, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Leonard J. Stayton, Inez, Kentucky, for Petitioner. H. Brett Stonecipher, REMINGER, L.P.A., Lexington, Kentucky, for Respondents Peabody Coal Company, LLC, and Peabody Investments, Inc.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1543 Doc: 22 Filed: 08/20/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Deborah Halstead petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s (BRB)

decision and order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial 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 [her] 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. No. 2018-BLA-05008. 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