Court Opinion

ID: 9555418
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-11 21:00:44.135486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:34:07.135747
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1172      Doc: 28         Filed: 08/10/2023   Pg: 1 of 5

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1172

        CEDAR COAL COMPANY,

                            Petitioner,

                     and

        AMERICAN ELECTRIC CORPORATION,

                     v.

        NOEL HOLCOMB; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
        PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

                            Respondents.

        On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (20-0517 BLA)

        Submitted: May 30, 2023                                      Decided: August 10, 2023

        Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Mark J. Grigoraci, ROBINSON & MCELWEE, PLLC, Charleston, West
        Virginia, for Petitioner. Timothy C. MacDonnell, Lane David, Advanced Administrative
        Litigation Clinic, WASHINTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW,
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1172      Doc: 28         Filed: 08/10/2023    Pg: 2 of 5

        Lexington, Virginia, for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1172      Doc: 28        Filed: 08/10/2023     Pg: 3 of 5

        PER CURIAM:

              Cedar Coal Company (“Employer”) petitions this court for review of the Benefits

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

        of benefits to Noel Holcomb (“Claimant”) under the Black Lung Benefits Act. Employer

        contends that substantial evidence does not support the ALJ’s conclusions that Claimant

        established that he had legal pneumoconiosis and that coal mine dust caused his

        pneumoconiosis.

              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., Off. 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 h[er] rationale in crediting certain evidence.”

        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.” Harman

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

              To receive benefits under the Act, Claimant had to prove that (1) he has

        pneumoconiosis (i.e., black lung disease); (2) it arose from his coal mine employment; (3)

                                                    3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1172      Doc: 28        Filed: 08/10/2023     Pg: 4 of 5

        he has a totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment; and (4) his pneumoconiosis

        contributes to his disabling impairment. See Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Stallard, 876 F.3d

        663, 667 (4th Cir. 2017); 20 C.F.R. §§ 718.202, 718.203, 718.204, 725.202(d). A miner

        can demonstrate that he suffers from either clinical pneumoconiosis or legal

        pneumoconiosis. Westmoreland Coal Co., 876 F.3d at 667. Legal pneumoconiosis is a

        classification that includes “any chronic lung disease or impairment” arising out of coal

        mining employment. 20 C.F.R. § 718.201(a); see Sea “B” Mining Co., 831 F.3d at 248.

        The regulations provide that “arising out of coal mining employment includes any chronic

        pulmonary disease or respiratory or pulmonary impairment significantly related to, or

        substantially aggravated by, dust exposure in coal mine employment.”           20 C.F.R.

        § 718.201(b).   A miner is considered totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis if the

        pneumoconiosis “is a substantially contributing cause of the miner’s totally disabling

        respiratory or pulmonary impairment.” 20 C.F.R. § 718.204(c)(1).

              Employer contends that the ALJ’s conclusion that Claimant established legal

        pneumoconiosis is undermined by the ALJ’s analysis of the medical evidence submitted.

        We have reviewed the record and conclude that the ALJ adequately analyzed the medical

        evidence and explained her reasoning in crediting and discrediting certain portions of it,

        and that her conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. ∗ Next, Employer argues

        that the ALJ’s conclusion that a causal relationship exists between pneumoconiosis and

              ∗
                  Because we conclude that the ALJ’s conclusion on legal pneumoconiosis is
        supported by substantial evidence, we do not address Employer’s contention that Claimant
        failed to establish clinical pneumoconiosis.

                                                    4
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1172      Doc: 28        Filed: 08/10/2023     Pg: 5 of 5

        coal mine employment is not supported by substantial evidence. However, our review of

        the record reflects that the ALJ’s conclusion is also supported by substantial evidence on

        this point.

               Accordingly, we deny Employer’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

                                                    5