Court Opinion

ID: 9406522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-30 21:01:29.596266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:31.286341
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-1938      Doc: 49         Filed: 06/29/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-1938

        BRODY MINING, LLC, c/o Encova Insurance,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        KENNETH C. LAMB; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
        PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

                            Respondents.

        On Petition for Review of An Order of the Benefits Review Board. (2020-0155-BLA)

        Submitted: May 31, 2023                                           Decided: June 29, 2023

        Before THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William S. Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Petitioner.
        Brad A. Austin, WOLFE WILLIAMS & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for Respondents.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-1938      Doc: 49         Filed: 06/29/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Brody Mining, LLC, petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s (BRB)

        decision and order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) 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 [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.

        Brody Mining, LLC v. Kenneth Lamb, No. 2020-0155-BLA (BRB June 30, 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