Case Name: CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor; Jack Carroll Lake, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-16
Citations: 575 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: No. 13-1042
Parties: CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor; Jack Carroll Lake, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 184–184

Head Matter:
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor; Jack Carroll Lake, Respondents.
No. 13-1042.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 30, 2014.
Decided: June 16, 2014.
William S. Mattingly, Jackson Kelly PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen Frank James, Associate Solicitor, Sean G. Bajkowski, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Jeffrey S. Goldberg, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.; Heath M. Long, PAW-LOWSKI, Bilonick & Long, Ebensburg, Pennsylvania, for Respondents.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Consolidation Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order affirming the administrative law judge's award of black lung benefits on a claim filed by Jack C. Lake pursuant to 30 U.S.C. § 901-945 (2012). Our review of the record 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. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, No. 11-0467-BLA (B.R.B. Apr. 16, 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.