Court Opinion

ID: 9554421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-08 21:00:28.113761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:39.419781
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1126      Doc: 29         Filed: 08/07/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 20-1126

        REBECCA J. RILEY,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, c/o WELLS FARGO DISABILITY MGT.;
        DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
        UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

                            Respondents.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (18-0375 BLA)

        Submitted: April 3, 2023                                          Decided: August 7, 2023

        Before AGEE, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Timothy C. MacDonnell, Caroline Crosby, Jesse Hamrick, Black Lung Legal
        Clinic, WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Lexington,
        Virginia, for Petitioner. Jeffrey R. Soukup, William S. Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY
        PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Respondent Island Creek Coal Company.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-1126         Doc: 29      Filed: 08/07/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Rebecca J. Riley petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s (BRB)

        decision and order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision on remand to

        deny, on reconsideration, her claim for 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

        [her] 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. Riley v. Island Creek Coal Co., No. 18-0375 BLA (B.R.B.

        Dec. 19, 2019). 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