USCA4 Appeal: 23-1708 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1708
ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
CURTIS M. OSBORNE; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (21-0611 BLA)
Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: May 15, 2025
Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: John R. Sigmond, Jason A. Mullins, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Bristol, Tennessee, for Petitioner. Brad A. Austin, WOLFE WILLIAMS & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for Respondent Curtis M. Osborne. David Casserly, Amanda Torres, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Federal Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1708 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Island Creek Coal Company (“Employer”) petitions for review of the Benefits
Review Board’s (“Board”) decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s
(ALJ) award of miner’s benefits to Curtis M. Osborne under the Black Lung Benefits Act,
30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944. Employer challenges the ALJ’s finding that Osborne suffers from
a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment. We deny the petition.
“We review the findings of the ALJ, as affirmed by the Board, to determine if they
are supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law.” Am. Energy, LLC v.
Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 106 F.4th 319, 330 (4th Cir. 2024) (alterations and
internal quotation marks omitted); see W. Va. CWP Fund v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp.
Programs, 880 F.3d 691, 697 (4th Cir. 2018) (“Smith”) (“In black lung cases, our review
is highly deferential.”). “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).
But “the duty to resolve conflicts in the evidence rests with the ALJ as factfinder.
And when conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant
is disabled or has pneumoconiosis, the responsibility for that decision falls on the ALJ.”
Sea “B” Mining Co. v. Addison, 831 F.3d 244, 252 (4th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, in
conducting our analysis, “we do not undertake to reweigh contradictory medical evidence,
make credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that [of the ALJ].” Id.
Indeed, “[s]o long as an ALJ’s findings . . . are supported by substantial evidence, they
2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1708 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 3 of 5
must be sustained.” Epling, 783 F.3d at 504. “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.” Addison, 831 F.3d at 252 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Nevertheless, “our deference to an ALJ’s factual findings is not unlimited,” as the
“ALJ must still conduct an appropriate analysis of the evidence to support his conclusion.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Thus, even if legitimate reasons exist for rejecting
or crediting certain evidence, the ALJ cannot do so for no reason or for the wrong reason.”
Id. at 252-53 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). “Furthermore, as a
condition to appellate review, an ALJ must adequately explain why he credited certain
evidence and discredited other evidence.” Id. at 253 (internal quotation marks omitted).
While “this requirement is not intended to be a mandate for administrative verbosity, a
reviewing court must be able to discern what the ALJ did and why he did it.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Generally, to establish eligibility for benefits, a miner must demonstrate that:
(1) “he has pneumoconiosis, in either its clinical or legal form”; (2) “the pneumoconiosis
arose out of coal mine employment”; (3) “he is totally disabled by a pulmonary or
respiratory impairment”; and (4) “his pneumoconiosis is a substantially contributing cause
of his total disability.” W. Va. CWP Fund v. Bender, 782 F.3d 129, 133 (4th Cir. 2015)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 725.202(d)(2) (2024). “But for certain
miners, Congress has made it easier to establish eligibility for benefits.” Smith, 880 F.3d
at 695. If the miner proves that he was employed in underground coal mines or in
substantially similar conditions for at least 15 years, that he has had a chest x-ray
3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1708 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 4 of 5
interpreted as negative for complicated pneumoconiosis, and that he has a totally disabling
respiratory or pulmonary impairment, he is entitled to the rebuttable presumption that he
is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis. 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4); 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(b)
(2024).
Here, the parties do not dispute that Osborne worked in underground coal mines or
substantially similar conditions for at least 15 years. But the parties disagree as to whether
Osborne established that he is totally disabled due to a respiratory or pulmonary
impairment and, therefore, is entitled to the rebuttable presumption.
“[A] miner shall be considered totally disabled if the miner has a pulmonary or
respiratory impairment which, standing alone, prevents . . . the miner . . . [f]rom
performing his . . . usual coal mine work” or comparable work. 20 C.F.R. § 718.204(b)(1)
(2024). “A miner’s usual coal mine work has been interpreted to mean the most recent job
the miner performed regularly and over a substantial period of time.” Samons v. Nat’l
Mines Corp., 25 F.4th 455, 459 (6th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A miner can prove a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment through:
(1) qualifying pulmonary function tests; (2) qualifying arterial blood gas studies (ABG);
(3) a showing that [t]he miner has pneumoconiosis” and that he “suffer[s] from cor
pulmonale with right-sided congestive heart failure”; or (4) well-documented and well-
reasoned physicians’ opinions “conclud[ing] that [the] miner’s respiratory or pulmonary
condition prevents . . . the miner from engaging in” his last mining job or comparable
work. 20 C.F.R.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1708 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1708
ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
CURTIS M. OSBORNE; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (21-0611 BLA)
Submitted: March 27, 2025 Decided: May 15, 2025
Before THACKER and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: John R. Sigmond, Jason A. Mullins, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Bristol, Tennessee, for Petitioner. Brad A. Austin, WOLFE WILLIAMS & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for Respondent Curtis M. Osborne. David Casserly, Amanda Torres, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Federal Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-1708 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Island Creek Coal Company (“Employer”) petitions for review of the Benefits
Review Board’s (“Board”) decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s
(ALJ) award of miner’s benefits to Curtis M. Osborne under the Black Lung Benefits Act,
30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944. Employer challenges the ALJ’s finding that Osborne suffers from
a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment. We deny the petition.
“We review the findings of the ALJ, as affirmed by the Board, to determine if they
are supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law.” Am. Energy, LLC v.
Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 106 F.4th 319, 330 (4th Cir. 2024) (alterations and
internal quotation marks omitted); see W. Va. CWP Fund v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp.
Programs, 880 F.3d 691, 697 (4th Cir. 2018) (“Smith”) (“In black lung cases, our review
is highly deferential.”). “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).
But “the duty to resolve conflicts in the evidence rests with the ALJ as factfinder.
And when conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant
is disabled or has pneumoconiosis, the responsibility for that decision falls on the ALJ.”
Sea “B” Mining Co. v. Addison, 831 F.3d 244, 252 (4th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, in
conducting our analysis, “we do not undertake to reweigh contradictory medical evidence,
make credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that [of the ALJ].” Id.
Indeed, “[s]o long as an ALJ’s findings . . . are supported by substantial evidence, they
2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1708 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 3 of 5
must be sustained.” Epling, 783 F.3d at 504. “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.” Addison, 831 F.3d at 252 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Nevertheless, “our deference to an ALJ’s factual findings is not unlimited,” as the
“ALJ must still conduct an appropriate analysis of the evidence to support his conclusion.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Thus, even if legitimate reasons exist for rejecting
or crediting certain evidence, the ALJ cannot do so for no reason or for the wrong reason.”
Id. at 252-53 (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted). “Furthermore, as a
condition to appellate review, an ALJ must adequately explain why he credited certain
evidence and discredited other evidence.” Id. at 253 (internal quotation marks omitted).
While “this requirement is not intended to be a mandate for administrative verbosity, a
reviewing court must be able to discern what the ALJ did and why he did it.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Generally, to establish eligibility for benefits, a miner must demonstrate that:
(1) “he has pneumoconiosis, in either its clinical or legal form”; (2) “the pneumoconiosis
arose out of coal mine employment”; (3) “he is totally disabled by a pulmonary or
respiratory impairment”; and (4) “his pneumoconiosis is a substantially contributing cause
of his total disability.” W. Va. CWP Fund v. Bender, 782 F.3d 129, 133 (4th Cir. 2015)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see 20 C.F.R. § 725.202(d)(2) (2024). “But for certain
miners, Congress has made it easier to establish eligibility for benefits.” Smith, 880 F.3d
at 695. If the miner proves that he was employed in underground coal mines or in
substantially similar conditions for at least 15 years, that he has had a chest x-ray
3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1708 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 4 of 5
interpreted as negative for complicated pneumoconiosis, and that he has a totally disabling
respiratory or pulmonary impairment, he is entitled to the rebuttable presumption that he
is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis. 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4); 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(b)
(2024).
Here, the parties do not dispute that Osborne worked in underground coal mines or
substantially similar conditions for at least 15 years. But the parties disagree as to whether
Osborne established that he is totally disabled due to a respiratory or pulmonary
impairment and, therefore, is entitled to the rebuttable presumption.
“[A] miner shall be considered totally disabled if the miner has a pulmonary or
respiratory impairment which, standing alone, prevents . . . the miner . . . [f]rom
performing his . . . usual coal mine work” or comparable work. 20 C.F.R. § 718.204(b)(1)
(2024). “A miner’s usual coal mine work has been interpreted to mean the most recent job
the miner performed regularly and over a substantial period of time.” Samons v. Nat’l
Mines Corp., 25 F.4th 455, 459 (6th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A miner can prove a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment through:
(1) qualifying pulmonary function tests; (2) qualifying arterial blood gas studies (ABG);
(3) a showing that [t]he miner has pneumoconiosis” and that he “suffer[s] from cor
pulmonale with right-sided congestive heart failure”; or (4) well-documented and well-
reasoned physicians’ opinions “conclud[ing] that [the] miner’s respiratory or pulmonary
condition prevents . . . the miner from engaging in” his last mining job or comparable
work. 20 C.F.R. § 718.204(b)(2) (2024). A “miner can establish total disability upon a
mere showing of evidence that satisfies any one of the four alternative methods, but only
4 USCA4 Appeal: 23-1708 Doc: 26 Filed: 05/15/2025 Pg: 5 of 5
in the absence of contrary probative evidence.” Lane v. Union Carbide Corp., 105 F.3d
166, 171 (4th Cir. 1997) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). “If contrary
evidence does exist, the ALJ must assign the contrary evidence appropriate weight and
determine whether it outweighs the evidence that supports a finding of total disability.” Id.
Like the Board, we find no merit to Employer’s argument that the ALJ did not hold
Osborne to his burden of establishing total disability. To the contrary, the ALJ concluded
that Osborne met his burden through the well-reasoned and well-documented opinion of
Dr. Michael Green. See Island Creek Coal Co. v. Maynard, 87 F.4th 802, 811
(6th Cir. 2023) (defining well-reasoned and well-documented). And we find no merit to
Employer’s argument that Dr. Green’s opinion was not well-reasoned or well-documented
simply because he did not have the opportunity to review the ABG performed by Dr. Roger
McSharry.
Accordingly, we deny the 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