UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1030

CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ELLEN YATES, o/b/o and survivor of Jerry Yates, deceased; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (18-0027-BLA; 18- 0028 BLA)

Submitted: June 30, 2020 Decided: July 15, 2020

Before AGEE, HARRIS, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy W. Gresham, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia, for Petitioner. Samuel B. Petsonk, MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, Beckley, West Virginia, for Respondent Ellen Yates.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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) awards of black lung benefits in a miner’s claim and a survivor’s claim pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944 (2018). 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 his 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. Yates v. Clinchfield Coal Co., Nos. 18-0027 BLA; 18-0028 BLA (B.R.B. Nov. 9, 2018). 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