Jewell Smokeless Coal Corporation v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1081
JEWELL SMOKELESS COAL CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ROGER L. HALE, SR.,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (22-0521 BLA)
Argued: May 7, 2026 Decided: June 8, 2026
Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and BERNER, Circuit Judges.
Petition for review denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charity Ann Barger, STREET LAW FIRM, LLP, Grundy, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brad
Anthony Austin, WOLFE WILLIAMS & AUSTIN, Norton, Virginia, for Respondent
Roger L. Hale, Sr.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jewell Smokeless Coal Corporation (Jewell Coal) filed this petition for review of
the December 4, 2023 decision of the Benefits Review Board, which affirmed the August
30, 2022 decision of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) awarding Roger L. Hale, Sr.,
black lung benefits pursuant to the Black Lung Benefits Act.
Hale, a former coal miner, had worked various coal mining jobs for 13 years,
spending the last seven and a half of those years working in an underground mine for Jewell
Coal. He had also smoked cigarettes for about 27 years. Before the ALJ, it was undisputed
that Hale had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and that he was totally
disabled as a result of this pulmonary impairment. Thus, the main question before the ALJ
was whether his COPD was “significantly related to, or substantially aggravated by,” his
exposure to dust during his coal mine employment, such that it arose out of that
employment and qualified as “legal pneumoconiosis,” 20 C.F.R. § 718.201(a)(2), (b), or
whether instead his COPD was caused only by his years of smoking. The ALJ reviewed
the evidence presented by the parties in detail, which included conflicting medical opinions
from four physicians, two of whom diagnosed legal pneumoconiosis and two of whom
attributed Hale’s COPD solely to his smoking, and found that Hale had met his burden of
proving that he was totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis and therefore awarded him
benefits.
On Jewell Coal’s appeal, the Benefits Review Board affirmed the ALJ’s decision,
concluding that the ALJ’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. Jewell
Coal then filed this petition for review.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
On a petition for review, we review an order of the Benefits Review Board by
“undertak[ing] an independent review of the record” to determine if the ALJ’s findings of
fact were supported by substantial evidence. Dehue Coal Co. v. Ballard, 65 F.3d 1189,
1193 (4th Cir. 1995); Island Creek Coal Co. v. Compton, 211 F.3d 203, 207 (4th Cir. 2000).
“Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla” — it is “such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Consol. Edison Co. v.
NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 (1938). And we review the legal conclusions of the Board and
the ALJ de novo. See Island Creek Coal, 211 F.3d at 208.
Jewell Coal presents essentially two arguments to challenge the Board’s order.
First, it contends that the Board erred in failing to address its argument that the ALJ had
erred in his calculation of the length of Hale’s coal mine employment — finding it to be
13.19 years — and in his finding that Hale’s above-ground mine work had been performed
in conditions substantially similar to those in his underground mine work. But the Board
concluded that such findings had no meaning to Hale’s claim for benefits. ALJs make such
findings when assessing whether a miner qualifies for the rebuttable “15-year presumption”
established by 30 U.S.C. § 921(c)(4) (providing that “there shall be a rebuttable
presumption that [a] miner is totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis” if the miner has “a
totally disabling respiratory or pulmonary impairment” and he “was employed for fifteen
years or more in one or more underground coal mines” or in conditions “substantially
similar to conditions in an underground mine”). But, in this case, it was undisputed that
the presumption could not apply, as Hale had less than 15 years of coal mine employment.
As such, the Board reasoned that Jewell Coal had “not explained how the ALJ’s alleged

-- 3 of 5 --

4
error in calculating [Hale’s] length of coal mine employment at 13.19 years would make a
difference” and similarly found that “the issue of substantial similarity [was] moot.” We
find no fault with the Board’s reasoning. Jewell Coal nonetheless challenges the Board’s
reasoning, arguing that the length of Hale’s employment and the conditions in which he
worked were also more broadly relevant to the ALJ’s assessment of whether Hale had
established that his COPD arose out of his coal mine employment. The flaw in that
argument, however, is that notwithstanding the specifics of the ALJ’s findings — which
were relevant only to the presumption’s applicability — it was basically undisputed before
the ALJ that Hale had about 13 years of coal mine employment and that he was regularly
exposed to “very dusty” conditions during the above-ground portion of his career, as he
testified to in detail. We fail to see any error in the Board’s treatment of this issue.
Second, Jewell Coal contends that the Board erred in affirming the ALJ’s findings
of legal pneumoconiosis and total disability causation based on the opinions of the two
doctors who opined that Hale’s COPD was caused by both his coal mine dust exposure and
his history of smoking. It further maintains that “the ALJ did not provide rational
explanations for discrediting” the contrary opinions of the other two experts, who attributed
Hale’s COPD solely to his smoking. It is well established, however, that we afford
substantial deference to the factual findings of the ALJs, including their determination of
the proper weight to accord competing medical opinions, see Extra Energy, Inc. v. Lawson,
140 F.4th 138, 146–47 (4th Cir. 2025), and our review of the record shows that the ALJ in
this case considered “all of the relevant evidence” and “sufficiently explained his rationale”
for crediting certain experts’ opinions over others, id. at 146 (cleaned up); see also Cedar

-- 4 of 5 --

5
Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs, 168 F.4th 685, 692–93 (4th Cir.
2026).
At bottom, we have carefully considered Jewell Coal’s arguments and the record
and agree with the Board that the ALJ’s factual findings were supported by substantial
evidence.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Board correctly affirmed the ALJ’s award of
black lung benefits to Hale and therefore deny Jewell Coal’s petition for review.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED

-- 5 of 5 --