UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-1999

T COAL COMPANY; SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD,

Petitioners,

v.

DANIEL L. COOK; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (20-0386-BLA) 

Submitted: May 30, 2023 Decided: June 22, 2023

Before WYNN and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: James M. Poerio, POERIO & WALTER, INC., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for 

Petitioners. Brad A. Austin, WOLFE WILLIAMS & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for 

Respondents. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1999 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 5
2

PER CURIAM:

T Coal Company and its carrier, Security Insurance Company of Hartford 

(collectively “T Coal”), petition this Court for review of the Benefits Review Board’s 

(“BRB”) decision and order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision 

and order granting Daniel L. Cook benefits under the Black Lung Benefit Acts, 30 U.S.C. 

§§ 901-944 (the “Act”). T Coal argues that the ALJ did not adequately consider all relevant 

evidence and that the ALJ’s decision to credit the opinion of Dr. J. Randolph Forehand 

over the opinion of Dr. Gregory J. Fino was neither supported by substantial evidence nor 

adequately explained. We deny the petition for review. 

In evaluating an ALJ’s decision that has been affirmed by the BRB, “[w]e review 

the BRB’s decision for errors of law and to ensure the BRB’s decision adhered to its 

statutory standard of review.” Dehue Coal Co. v. Ballard, 65 F.3d 1189, 1193 (4th Cir. 

1995). Our review 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). We review the legal 

conclusions of the BRB and the ALJ de novo. Edd Potter Coal Co. v. Dir., Off. of Workers’ 

Comp. Programs, 39 F.4th 202, 206 (4th Cir. 2022). 

“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 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1999 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 5
3

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). 

To establish entitlement to living miner’s benefits under the Act, the miner must 

prove: “(1) that he has pneumoconiosis, in either its clinical or legal form; (2) that the 

pneumoconiosis arose out of coal mine employment; (3) that he is totally disabled by a 

pulmonary or respiratory impairment; and (4) that his pneumoconiosis is a substantially 

contributing cause of his total disability.” W. Va. CWP Fund v. Bender, 782 F.3d 129, 133 

(4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted); see 20 CF.R. §§ 718.204(c)(1), 

725.202(d)(2). Under the Act, “pneumoconiosis” is defined as “a chronic dust disease of 

the lung and its sequelae, including respiratory and pulmonary impairments, arising out of 

coal mine employment,” and includes both “clinical” and “legal” pneumoconiosis. 

20 C.F.R. § 718.201(a). “‘Legal pneumoconiosis’ includes any chronic lung disease or 

impairment and its sequelae arising out of coal mine employment.” 20 C.F.R. 

§ 718.201(a)(2). “Arising out of coal mine employment” means “significantly related to, 

or substantially aggravated by, dust exposure in coal mine employment.” 20 C.F.R. 

§ 718.201(b). 

We must first consider whether the ALJ examined “all of the relevant evidence.” 

Milburn Colliery Co. v. Hicks, 138 F.3d 524, 528 (4th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). T 

Coal asserts that the ALJ did not adequately consider all the evidence about Cook’s 

smoking history and should have determined a precise smoking history. As the ALJ noted, 

however, Cook was repeatedly inconsistent when discussing how long he smoked and how 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1999 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 5
4

much he smoked, and the treatment records are broadly consistent with the ALJ’s finding.

The ALJ’s conclusion that it was impossible to precisely determine Cook’s smoking 

history, but that it was up to 45 pack years, was rational, adequately explained, and 

supported by substantial evidence. 

Next, T Coal argues that the ALJ erred in affording weight to Forehand’s opinion, 

asserting that Forehand’s opinion is neither reasoned nor well-documented because it was 

formed with a belief that Cook smoked half a pack of cigarettes a year for 37 years. We 

conclude that substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s reliance on Forehand’s opinion and 

that the ALJ adequately explained why he credited Forehand, notwithstanding Cook’s 

inconsistent reports of his smoking history. The ALJ discussed Forehand’s consideration 

of Cook’s lengthy smoking history in conjunction with the extremely dusty conditions of

Cook’s coal mining employment when crediting Forehand’s opinion that both smoking and 

coal mine dust substantially contributed to Cook’s totally disabling respiratory impairment. 

Relatedly, T Coal asserts that Fino’s opinion is entitled to weight because he was 

more accurately informed about Cook’s smoking history than was Forehand. Again, the 

ALJ’s determinations were supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ permissibly

determined that, although Fino had a more accurate understanding of Cook’s smoking 

history, he did not adequately explain why coal mine dust could not have played any role 

in Cook’s respiratory impairment. Because the ALJ’s determinations were rational, 

explained, and supported by substantial evidence, we decline T Coal’s invitation to 

substitute our weighing of the conflicting opinions for that of the ALJ. See Westmoreland 

Coal Co. v. Cochran, 718 F.3d 319, 322 (4th Cir. 2013). 

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1999 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/22/2023 Pg: 4 of 5
5

Accordingly, we deny T Coal’s petition for review. 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: 21-1999 Doc: 28 Filed: 06/22/2023 Pg: 5 of 5