Court Opinion

ID: 9404694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 21:00:30.604702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:16.299134
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-2115      Doc: 44         Filed: 06/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 20-2115

        ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        JAMES L. FIELDS; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
        PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

                            Respondents.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (19-0316 BLA)

        Submitted: April 28, 2023                                         Decided: June 22, 2023

        Before WILKINSON, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Catherine A. Karczmarczyk, John R. Sigmond, PENN, STUART &
        ESKRIDGE, Bristol, Tennessee, for Petitioner. Brad A. Austin, WOLFE WILLIAMS &
        REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for Respondent, James L. Fields.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-2115      Doc: 44         Filed: 06/22/2023    Pg: 2 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Island Creek Coal Company (Employer) petitions for review of the Benefits Review

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

        of benefits to former miner James L. Fields under 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944. On appeal,

        Employer disputes the ALJ’s finding that the evidence of record, particularly the arterial

        blood gas tests (ABGs) and medical opinion evidence, preponderated in favor of a totally

        disabling pulmonary or respiratory impairment. We deny the petition for review.

               Our review is limited to determining “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.” Hobet Mining, LLC v. Epling, 783 F.3d 498,

        504 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). We review the legal conclusions

        of the BRB and the ALJ de novo. Edd Potter Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp.

        Programs, 39 F.4th 202, 206 (4th Cir. 2022). In doing so, we must “confine our review to

        the grounds upon which the BRB based its decision.” E. Assoc. Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of

        Workers’ Comp. Progs., 805 F.3d 502, 510 (4th Cir. 2015).

               In its filings before this court, Employer specifically argues that the ALJ

        impermissibly relied only on the numerical superiority of qualifying ABGs when finding

        that the ABG evidence as a whole supported total disability. Employer also argues that the

        ALJ’s error with respect to the ABG evidence invalidates her analysis of the medical

        opinion evidence regarding total disability.

               “It is well established that parties to an agency proceeding must raise at the time

        appropriate under the agency’s practice all issues which it intends to assert on appeal.”

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-2115      Doc: 44         Filed: 06/22/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        South Carolina v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 795 F.2d 375, 378 (4th Cir. 1986) (cleaned up).

        This Court recently confirmed that Department of Labor regulations require issue

        exhaustion before the BRB. Edd Potter Coal, 39 F.4th at 205. Any petition for review by

        the BRB must “list[] the specific issues to be considered on appeal.”             20 C.F.R.

        § 802.211(a). The accompanying brief also must “[s]pecifically state[] the issues to be

        considered by the [BRB].” 20 C.F.R. § 802.211(b). “Forfeiture results when a party fails

        to raise an issue at the appropriate time.” Edd Potter Coal, 39 F.4th at 206; see Armco,

        Inc. v. Martin, 277 F.3d 468, 476 (4th Cir. 2002) (deeming issues not raised before BRB

        forfeited on appeal).

               In the analogous context of an appeal from a district court order, we are “obliged on

        appeal to consider any theory plainly encompassed by the submissions in the underlying

        litigation.” De Simone v. VSL Pharms., Inc., 36 F.4th 518, 528 (4th Cir. 2022) (internal

        quotation marks omitted). “[A] party must do more than raise a non-specific objection or

        claim to preserve a more specific argument on appeal. Rather, to preserve an argument for

        appeal, the party must press and not merely intimate the argument during the proceedings

        before the district court.” Wards Corner Beauty Acad. v. Nat’l Accrediting Comm’n of

        Career Arts & Scis., 922 F.3d 568, 578 (4th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).

        “Variations on arguments made below may be pursued, so long as the appealing party

        asked both courts to evaluate the same fundamental question.” De Simone, 36 F.4th at 528

        (cleaned up). Ultimately, “the lower court [must] be fairly put on notice as to the substance

        of the issue,” Wards Corner, 922 F.3d at 578 (internal quotation marks omitted), and “a

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 20-2115      Doc: 44         Filed: 06/22/2023      Pg: 4 of 4

        party may not leave the district court without any signal that it contests a fact or point of

        law,” De Simone, 36 F.4th at 528 (internal quotation marks omitted).

               In its petition for review before the BRB, Employer challenged the ALJ’s evaluation

        of the ABG evidence as unsupported by substantial evidence and insufficiently explained.

        As Employer acknowledges, however, the BRB did not construe Employer’s petition for

        review as raising the challenge to the ABG evidence that Employer now presents. Upon

        review of the agency record, we conclude that Employer’s petition for review before the

        BRB did not fairly raise the challenge to the ALJ’s reliance on numerical superiority of

        qualifying ABGs on which Employer now relies or provide the BRB a fair opportunity to

        address that issue in the first instance. * We therefore conclude that Employer has forfeited

        review of its challenge to the ALJ’s evaluation of the ABG evidence. And, because

        Employer’s challenge to the medical opinion evidence is dependent upon its challenge to

        the ABG evidence, we conclude that the forfeiture is dispositive of this appeal.

               Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. 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

               *
                 While Employer expressly challenged the ALJ’s reliance on a purely quantitative
        analysis of ABG evidence when seeking reconsideration en banc by the BRB, we lack
        jurisdiction to review the BRB’s decision to summarily deny reconsideration. Betty B Coal
        Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 194 F.3d 491, 496 (4th Cir. 1999).

                                                     4