Court Opinion

ID: 9411172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 21:01:49.643181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:05.120007
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2331      Doc: 28         Filed: 07/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2331

        CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
        UNITED STATES DEPARMENT OF LABOR; JAMES E. PATTERSON,

                            Respondents.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (2020-0383 BLA)

        Submitted: July 17, 2023                                          Decided: July 24, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: William S. Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for
        Petitioner. Sean Gregory Bajkowski, William M. Bush, UNITED STATES
        DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2331      Doc: 28         Filed: 07/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Consolidation Coal Company (Employer) petitions for review of the Benefits

        Review Board’s (BRB) decision and order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s

        (ALJ) denial of Employer’s request for modification of an earlier award of black lung

        benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944. Our review of the BRB’s decision 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). “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 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).

               Our review of the record discloses that the BRB’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 BRB. Patterson v. Consolidation Coal Co., No. 20-0383 BLA

        (BRB Sept. 29, 2021). 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

                                                    2