Case Name: LAUREL RUN MINING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Patricia Ann MAYNARD; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-18
Citations: 575 F. App'x 188
Docket Number: No. 12-2581
Parties: LAUREL RUN MINING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Patricia Ann MAYNARD; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 188–188

Head Matter:
LAUREL RUN MINING COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Patricia Ann MAYNARD; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
No. 12-2581.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 30, 2014.
Decided: June 18, 2014.
Ashley M. Harman, Tiffany B. Davis, Jackson Kelly PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Leonard J. Stay-ton, Inez, Kentucky; M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen Frank James, Associate Solicitor, Gary K. Stear-man, Jeffrey S. Goldberg, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Laurel Run Mining Company petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 901-945 (2012). Our review of the parties' briefs and the record on appeal discloses that the Board'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 Board. Laurel Run Mining Co. v. Maynard, Nos. 11-0817 BLA; 12-0032 BLA (B.R.B. Oct. 31, 2012). 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.