Cedar Coal Company v. Noel Holcomb

UNPUBLISHED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Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,

-- 1 of 5 --

2
Lexington, Virginia, for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
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 of 5 --

4
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 of 5 --

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 of 5 --