Dominion Coal Corporation v. Virginia Compton, No. 12-2486 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2486 DOMINION COAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. VIRGINIA R. COMPTON, Widow of Johnny Compton;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 Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Dominion Coal Corporation ( Employer ) seeks review of the decision and order of the Benefits Review Board ( Board ) affirming the survivor s employee administrative benefits law Virginia Compton, Johnny to on judge s E. ( ALJ ) widow subsequent claim her Compton, award of of former under 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 2007 & Supp. 2013) ( the Act ), as amended by ( PPACA ), (2010). the Pub. Patient L. No. Protection 111-148, § and Affordable 1556, 124 Stat. Care Act 119, 260 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. 138 F.3d 524, 529 (4th Cir. 1998). Carbide Corp. v. Richards, 721 Milburn Colliery Co. v. Hicks, Our recent decision in Union 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 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 contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DENIED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
