Dwight A. Jones v. Shenandoah Coal Company and Travelers Insurance Company (Board decision, December 16, 2022)

BRB interlocutory order. This unpublished order is not precedent. The Benefits Review Board denied the employer and carrier's motion to reconsider its earlier remand of Dwight Jones's black lung claim. The claim remains pending on remand, and benefit entitlement is unresolved.

Plain-English summary

The Board had previously vacated a judge's denial of Dwight Jones's black lung benefits and sent the claim back for further review. Shenandoah Coal and Travelers Insurance asked the Board to reconsider that decision. Neither Jones nor the Director responded. After reviewing the motion, a majority of the panel voted against reconsideration, so the Board denied it. The earlier remand remains in effect, and this order does not decide whether Jones receives benefits.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Board reconsideration under 33 U.S.C. § 921(b)(5) and 20 C.F.R. §§ 802.407 and 802.409.
• Outcome: Employer's reconsideration motion denied; earlier remand remains in effect.
• Key point: A majority of the panel voted against reopening the Board's remand decision.

Full text (DOL BRB public release)

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

BRB No. 21-0123 BLA

DWIGHT A. JONES
)
)
Claimant-Petitioner
)
)
v. )
)
SHENANDOAH COAL COMPANY
)
)
and
)
)
TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY
) DATE ISSUED: 12/16/2022
)
Employer/Carrier-
)
Respondents
)
)
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’
)
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
)
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
)
) ORDER on
Party-in-Interest
) RECONSIDERATION

Employer and its Carrier (Employer) have filed a timely motion for reconsideration of the Benefits Review Board’s Decision and Order in Jones v. Shenandoah Coal Co., BRB No. 21-0123 BLA (May 31, 2022) (unpub.), vacating the ALJ’s denial of benefits and remanding the case for further consideration. 33 U.S.C. §921(b)(5); 20 C.F.R.
§802.407(a). Neither Claimant nor the Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation
Programs, has filed a response.

After consideration of Employer’s contentions and review of the Board’s disposition of this case, a majority of the panel voted not to grant reconsideration.
Therefore, Employer’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 20 C.F.R. §§801.301(c),
802.409.

By Order of the Board:

Thomas O. Shepherd, Jr.
Clerk of the Appellate Boards

2