Raymond Abshire v. Kentland Elkhorn Coal Corporation and The Pittston Company (Board decision, July 8, 2019)

BRB final decision. This unpublished reconsideration order is not precedent. The Benefits Review Board denied the employer's motion to reconsider its earlier decision affirming Raymond Abshire's black lung benefits award and employer liability. Board finality is governed by 20 C.F.R. § 802.406; this order disposes of reconsideration under §§ 802.407 and 802.409.

Plain-English summary

Kentland Elkhorn Coal and its carrier asked the Board to reconsider its March 2019 decision in Raymond Abshire's black lung benefits case. Abshire and the Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs opposed the request. After considering the employer's arguments, no panel member voted to change the earlier decision. The Board denied reconsideration, leaving the earlier benefits and employer liability ruling in place.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Board reconsideration under 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(5) and 20 C.F.R. § 802.409.
• Outcome: Employer's reconsideration motion denied.
• Key point: The Board left its earlier benefits and employer liability decision intact.

Full text (DOL BRB public release)

U.S. Department of Labor
Benefits Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001

BRB No. 18-0219 BLA

RAYMOND ABSHIRE
)
)
Claimant-Respondent
)
)
v. )
)
KENTLAND ELKHORN COAL
)
CORPORATION, c/o THE PITTSTON
)
COMPANY
)
)
and
) DATE ISSUED: 07/08/2019
)
THE PITTSTON COMPANY, c/o
)
HEALTHSMART CCS
)
)
Employer/Carrier-
)
Petitioners
)
)
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’
)
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
)
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
)
) ORDER on MOTION for
Party-in-Interest
) RECONSIDERATION

Employer/carrier has filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the Board’s decision in this case, Abshire v. Kentland Elkhorn Coal Corp., 18-0219 BLA (Mar. 22, 2019) (unpub.). 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(5); 20 C.F.R. §802.407(a). Claimant and the Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, respond that the Board’s decision should be affirmed.1

1
Claimant filed a Motion for an Extension of Time to file his response to employer’s Motion for Reconsideration, followed by his response brief. We accept claimant’s brief as part of the record. 20 C.F.R. §§802.217, 802.219. After consideration of employer’s contentions, no member of the panel has voted to vacate or modify the decision herein.2 Therefore, employer’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 20 C.F.R. §§801.301(b), 802.409.

SO ORDERED.

JUDITH S. BOGGS, Chief
Administrative Appeals Judge

RYAN GILLIGAN
Administrative Appeals Judge

JONATHAN ROLFE
Administrative Appeals Judge

2
Due to the retirement of Chief Administrative Appeals Judge Betty Jean Hall on March 31, 2019, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge Judith S. Boggs is substituted on this panel. 20 C.F.R. §802.407(a).