UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2570

MOUNTAINEER COAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED; WEST 

VIRGINIA CWP FUND,

Petitioners,

v.

LARRY A. DINGESS; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board.

(12-0034-BLA)

Submitted: July 31, 2013 Decided: August 30, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark J. Grigoraci, ROBINSON & MCELWEE PLLC, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Petitioners. Otis R. Mann, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF 

OTIS R. MANN, JR., Charleston, West Virginia; M. Patricia Smith, 

Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen James, Deputy Solicitor, Gary K. 

Stearman, Helen H. Cox, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 

Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mountaineer Coal Development Company (“Employer”) 

petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s (“Board”) 

decision and order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s 

(“ALJ”) award of benefits to Larry A. Dingess under the Black 

Lung Benefits Act (“Act”), 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 2007 & 

Supp. 2013). We deny the petition for review.

We review the Board’s and the ALJ’s legal conclusions 

de novo and “independent[ly] review . . . the record to 

determine whether the ALJ’s findings of fact were supported by 

substantial evidence.” Island Creek Coal Co. v. Compton, 211 

F.3d 203, 207-08 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). “‘Substantial evidence is more than a mere 

scintilla’; it is ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind 

might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Id.

(quoting Consol. Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)). 

In conducting this review, we confine ourselves to the grounds 

on which the Board based its decision. Daniels Co. v. Mitchell, 

479 F.3d 321, 329 (4th Cir. 2007).

Subject to the substantial evidence requirement, we 

defer to the ALJ’s credibility determinations and “evaluation of 

the proper weight to accord conflicting medical opinions.” 

Harman Mining Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 

678 F.3d 305, 310 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks 
3

omitted). The ALJ is not bound to accept any medical expert 

opinion but “must evaluate the evidence, weigh it, and draw his 

own conclusions,” giving consideration to “the qualifications of 

the experts, the opinions’ reasoning, their reliance on 

objectively determinable symptoms and established science, their 

detail of analysis, and their freedom from irrelevant 

distractions and prejudices.” Underwood v. Elkay Mining, Inc., 

105 F.3d 946, 949, 951 (4th Cir. 1997), superseded on other 

grounds as stated in Elm Grove Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of 

Workers’ Comp. Programs, 480 F.3d 278, 287 (4th Cir. 2007).

Because Dingess was employed in underground coal mines 

for fifteen or more years, had at least one chest x-ray 

interpreted as negative for complicated pneumoconiosis, and 

demonstrated that he has a totally disabling pulmonary 

impairment, he is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that he 

is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis.*

 See 30 U.S.C.A. 

§ 921(c)(4); 20 C.F.R. § 718.305(a) (2013). The burden then 

shifted to Employer to affirmatively “rebut such presumption 

only by establishing that (A) such miner does not . . . have 

pneumoconiosis, or that (B) his respiratory or pulmonary 

impairment did not arise out of, or in connection with, 

 * This presumption was restored by the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, § 1556, 124 Stat. 

119, 260 (2010). 
4

employment in a coal mine.” 30 U.S.C.A. § 921(c)(4); see 20 

C.F.R. § 718.305(a); Morrison v. Tenn. Consol. Coal Co., 644 

F.3d 473, 479-80 (6th Cir. 2011). Upon review of the evidence 

submitted in this case, we conclude that substantial evidence 

supports the ALJ’s finding that Employer failed to affirmatively 

rebut the presumption. See 20 C.F.R. § 718.201(a)(2); Harman 

Mining Co., 678 F.3d at 311. Thus, the ALJ did not err in 

awarding benefits under the Act.

Accordingly, we deny Employer’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