Clinchfield Coal Company, c/o HealthSmart Casualty Claims Solutions v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-2170
CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY, c/o HealthSmart Casualty Claims Solutions,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; KELLIS C. BARTON,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (23-0360-BLA)
Submitted: April 22, 2026 Decided: July 14, 2026
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Timothy W. Gresham, Kendra R. Prince, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE,
Abingdon, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brad A. Austin, WOLFE WILLIAMS & AUSTIN,
Norton, Virginia, for Respondent Kellis C. Barton
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
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 a decision of BRB 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)
(quoting Hobet Mining, LLC v. Epling, 783 F.3d 498, 504 (4th Cir. 2015)) (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) (quoting
Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938)) (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, 783 F.3d at 504 (quoting
Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. Owens, 724 F.3d 550, 557 (4th Cir. 2013)) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Upon review of the record and consideration of the parties’ arguments on appeal,
we conclude that the BRB’s decision is based on substantial evidence and is without
reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the
BRB. BRB No. 23-0360 BLA. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --