S & D Coal Company v. DOWCP

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1026 Doc: 61 Filed: 10/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1026 S & D COAL COMPANY; TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (22-0478 BLA; 22- 0479 BLA) Submitted: August 26, 2025 Decided: October 2, 2025 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Daniel G. Murdock, FULTON, DEVLIN & POWERS, LLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Petitioners. Seema Nanda, Solicitor of Labor, Barry H. Joyner, Associate Solicitor, Jennifer Feldman Jones, Deputy Associate Solicitor, Michael P. Doyle, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, William M. Bush, Attorney, UNITED STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1026 Doc: 61 Filed: 10/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: S & D Coal Company petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s (the Board) 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 Board’s decision is limited to considering “whether substantial evidence supports the factual findings of the ALJ and whether the legal conclusions of the [Board] 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 Board’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 Board. BRB-1: 22-0478 BLA; BRB: 22-0479-BLA. 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 2