Case Name: MUD LICK MINING CORPORATION; American Mining Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Charles R. HASH; 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: 2014-04-11
Citations: 566 F. App'x 208
Docket Number: No. 12-1688
Parties: MUD LICK MINING CORPORATION; American Mining Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Charles R. HASH; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 566
Pages: 208–209

Head Matter:
MUD LICK MINING CORPORATION; American Mining Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Charles R. HASH; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.
No. 12-1688.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 28, 2014.
Decided: April 11, 2014.
John R. Sigmond, Penn, Stuart & Esk-ridge, Bristol, Tennessee, for Petitioners. Joseph E. Wolfe, Ryan C. Gilligan, Wolfe, Williams, Rutherford & Reynolds, Norton, Virginia; M. Patricia Smith, Solicitor of Labor, Rae Ellen James, Associate Solicitor, Gary K. Stearman, Appellate Litigation, Jonathan P. Rolfe, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mud Lick Mining Corporation and American Mining Insurance Company seek 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). We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal and conclude 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. Mud Lick Mining Corp. v. Hash, No. 11-0402 BLA (B.R.B. Mar. 29, 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.