Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY, c/o HealthSmart Casualty Claims Solutions, Petitioner, v. Lloyd LAMBERT; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.

No. 19-1745

Decided: January 29, 2021

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Timothy W. Gresham, Kendra R. Prince, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia, for Petitioner. Joseph E. Wolfe, Victoria S. Herman, WOLFE WILLIAMS & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia; Sean G. Bajkowski, Sarah M. Hurley, Office of the Solicitor - Black Lung Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Clinchfield Coal Company 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 for the reasons stated by the BRB. Lambert v. Clinchfield Coal Co., No. 18-0358-BLA (B.R.B. May 21, 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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Copied to clipboard