Consolidation Coal Company v. DOWCP

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2331 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2331
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
UNITED STATES DEPARMENT OF LABOR; JAMES E. PATTERSON,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (2020-0383 BLA)
Submitted: July 17, 2023 Decided: July 24, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: William S. Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for
Petitioner. Sean Gregory Bajkowski, William M. Bush, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2331 Doc: 28 Filed: 07/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Consolidation Coal Company (Employer) petitions for review of the Benefits
Review Board’s (BRB) decision and order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s
(ALJ) denial of Employer’s request for modification of an earlier 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 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. Patterson v. Consolidation Coal Co., No. 20-0383 BLA
(BRB Sept. 29, 2021). 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