Clinchfield Coal Company v. Lloyd Lambert ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1745
CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY, c/o HealthSmart Casualty Claims Solutions,
Petitioner,
v.
LLOYD LAMBERT; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (18-0358-BLA)
Submitted: January 26, 2021 Decided: January 29, 2021
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy W. Gresham, Kendra R. Prince, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph E. Wolfe, Victoria S. Herman, WOLFE WILLIAMS &
REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia; Sean G. Bajkowski, Sarah M. Hurley, Office of the
Solicitor - Black Lung Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clinchfield Coal Company 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. §§ 901-944. 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. Lambert v. Clinchfield Coal Co., No. 18-0358-BLA
(B.R.B. May 21, 2019). 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
2