Court Opinion

ID: 9409087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 21:00:58.146498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.717934
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2310      Doc: 14         Filed: 07/13/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2310

        CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY, c/o HealthSmart Casualty Claims Solutions,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        PHYLLIS J. MOORE, on behalf of and widow of Delmus Moore; DIRECTOR,
        OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES
        DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

                            Respondents.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (21-0039-BLA; 21-
        0040-BLA)

        Submitted: March 29, 2023                                         Decided: July 13, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Timothy Ward Gresham, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia, for
        Petitioner. Sarah Marie Hurley, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
        Washington, D.C., for Respondent Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs,
        United States Department of Labor.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2310      Doc: 14        Filed: 07/13/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

              Clinchfield Coal Company (“Clinchfield”) petitions this Court for review of the

        Benefits Review Board’s (“BRB”) order affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s

        (“ALJ”) award of benefits to Phyllis Moore (“Claimant”) under the Black Lung Act.

        Clinchfield contends that the ALJ did not adequately consider the x-ray evidence in

        concluding that Claimant had invoked the irrebuttable presumption that Delmus K. Moore

        (“Miner”) was totally disabled. However, Clinchfield does not directly challenge the

        ALJ’s alternative conclusion that Claimant established the 15-year presumption of total

        disability due to pneumoconiosis under § 411(c)(4) of the Affordable Care Act, instead

        contending generally that the ALJ did not adequately explain his findings and conclusions.

              Our review of the BRB’s decision upholding an award of benefits 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.” W. Va. CWP Fund v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 880 F.3d

        691, 697 (4th Cir. 2018) (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

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2310      Doc: 14        Filed: 07/13/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        omitted). “We review the legal conclusions of the [BRB] and the ALJ de novo.” Harman

        Mining Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 678 F.3d 305, 310 (4th Cir. 2012).

              “Administrative adjudications are subject to the same harmless error rule that

        generally applies to civil cases.” Addison, 831 F.3d at 253. Therefore, Clinchfield must

        show that it was prejudiced by any error. Id. Clinchfield contends that the ALJ needed to

        adequately explain every finding and conclusion. However, Clinchfield does not attempt

        to establish prejudice by demonstrating that such an error affected the proceeding’s

        outcome.   See id. at 253-54.     We do not determine prejudice “through mandatory

        presumptions and rigid rules” such as the one Clinchfield proposes. Id. at 254 (internal

        quotation marks omitted). Because Clinchfield does not otherwise contest the ALJ’s

        alternative determination, we conclude that any error was harmless.

              Accordingly, we deny Clinchfield’s 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

                                                    3