Terry Eagle Ltd Partnership v. Merle Payne

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 12, 2022
• Docket: 20-2131
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2131 Doc: 37 Filed: 10/12/2022 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2131

TERRY EAGLE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

Petitioner,

v.

MERLE H. PAYNE; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (19-0507 BLA)

Submitted: June 27, 2022 Decided: October 12, 2022

Before DIAZ, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Joseph D. Halbert, Crystal L. Moore, SHELTON, BRANHAM & HALBERT, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Petitioner. Elena S. Goldstein, Deputy Solicitor, Barry H. Joyner, Associate Solicitor, Jennifer L. Feldman, Deputy Associate Solicitor, Gary K. Stearman, Sarah M. Hurley, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Brad A. Austin, WOLFE WILLIAMS & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 20-2131 Doc: 37 Filed: 10/12/2022 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Terry Eagle Limited Partnership (“Employer”) petitions this court for review of the

Benefits Review Board’s (BRB) per curiam decision affirming the Administrative Law

Judge’s (ALJ) opinion and order granting Merle Payne’s (“Claimant”) request for

modification and awarding Claimant benefits. Employer contends that its due process and

equal protection rights were violated ∗ and that the ALJ failed to adequately consider

whether granting Claimant’s modification request would serve justice under the Black

Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944 (“Act”). We affirm.

We review an ALJ’s ruling on a modification request for an abuse of discretion and

will “reverse[] if it was guided by erroneous legal principles, or if the [ALJ] committed a

clear error of judgment in the conclusion [he] reached upon a weighing of the relevant

factors.” Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Sharpe ex rel. Sharpe, 692 F.3d 317, 327 (4th Cir.

2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, de novo reviews applies to

conclusions of law. Frontier-Kemper Constructors, Inc. v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp.

Programs, 876 F.3d 683, 687 (4th Cir. 2017). Regarding Employer’s claim relating to

serving justice under the Act, we have reviewed the record and conclude that the ALJ

adequately considered the relevant factors when granting Claimant’s modification request

∗ Because Employer did not exhaust its due process and equal protection claims before the ALJ and the BRB, Employer has forfeited review of those claims. See Edd Potter Coal Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 39 F.4th 202, 206-11 (4th Cir. 2022) (holding that if a party fails to exhaust a claim at the appropriate stage in a proceeding, then the party has forfeited that claim). We therefore decline to address them in the first instance.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 20-2131 Doc: 37 Filed: 10/12/2022 Pg: 3 of 3

and awarding benefits. See Sharpe v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 495 F.3d

125, 132-33 (4th Cir. 2007) (listing factors).

Accordingly, we affirm the BRB’s decision upholding the ALJ’s decision and order

granting Claimant’s modification request. 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