Westmoreland Coal Company v. DOWCP ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1103
WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; RONNIE A. STIDHAM,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (17-0656-BLA)
Submitted: December 1, 2020 Decided: January 6, 2021
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul E. Frampton, Fazal A. Shere, BOWLES RICE LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Petitioner. Kate S. O’Scannlain, Solicitor of Labor, Barry H. Joyner, Associate Solicitor,
Gary K. Stearman, Ann Marie Scarpino, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Washington, D.C.; Joseph E. Wolfe, Victoria S. Herman, WOLFE WILLIAMS &
REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Westmoreland Coal Company (“Westmoreland”) petitions for review of the
Benefits Review Board’s (BRB) decision and order affirming the Administrative Law
Judge’s (ALJ) award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945.
Westmoreland argues that the BRB and ALJ inappropriately discounted certain medical
opinions when deciding this case. 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. Stidham v. Westmoreland Coal Co., No. 17-0656-BLA
(B.R.B. Nov. 26, 2018).
2
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
3