Dominion Coal Corporation v. VIRGINIA R. COMPTON, Widow of Johnny Compton

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2486
DOMINION COAL CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
VIRGINIA R. COMPTON, Widow of Johnny Compton; DIRECTOR,
OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board
(11-0844-BLA).
Submitted: December 23, 2013 Decided: January 27, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald E. Gilbertson, HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Joseph E. Wolfe, Ryan C. Gilligan, WOLFE, WILLIAMS,
RUTHERFORD & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia; Barry H. Joyner, Gary
K. Stearman, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for
Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dominion Coal Corporation (“Employer”) seeks review of
the decision and order of the Benefits Review Board (“Board”)
affirming the administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) award of
survivor’s benefits to Virginia E. Compton, widow of former
employee Johnny Compton, on her subsequent claim under 30
U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 2007 & Supp. 2013) (“the Act”), as
amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(“PPACA”), Pub. L. No. 111-148, § 1556, 124 Stat. 119, 260
(2010). We deny the petition for review.
Employer raises only legal challenges to the orders of
the ALJ and the Board. We review de novo the Board’s and the
ALJ’s legal conclusions, to ensure that “they are rational and
consistent with applicable law.” Milburn Colliery Co. v. Hicks,
138 F.3d 524, 529 (4th Cir. 1998). Our recent decision in Union
Carbide Corp. v. Richards, 721 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2013),
precludes Employer’s argument that the finality provisions of
the Act should bar Compton’s subsequent survivor’s claim.
Scotts Co. v. United Indus. Corp., 315 F.3d 264, 271 n.2 (4th
Cir. 2002) (“[A] panel of this court cannot overrule, explicitly
or implicitly, the precedent set by a prior panel of this court.
Only the Supreme Court or this court sitting en banc can do
that.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Employer also contends that the commencement date of
benefits on Compton’s subsequent survivor’s claim cannot predate
January 1, 2005. Pursuant to § 725.309(c)(6), “[i]n any case in
which a subsequent claim is awarded, no benefits may be paid for
any period prior to the date upon which the order denying the
prior claim became final.” Because the PPACA did not alter or
contradict § 725.309(c)(6), which was at the time of the PPACA’s
enactment in effect under subsection (d)(5), we conclude that
the Board did not err in relying on that regulation to establish
the onset date of benefits.
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

-- 3 of 3 --