UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 3
2

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.

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

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