Charles T. Thrush v. Hobet Mining Incorporated (Board decision, August 11, 2026)

Thrush v. Hobet Mining (BRB 25-0060): Trust Fund directed to pay benefits

Decision type
Board decision
Docket
25-0060 BLA
Decided
August 11, 2026
Outcome
Procedural
Precedential status
Unpublished Board decision, not precedent
Checked against source
2026-10-07

Apply this to your situation

This order from 2026 bound only the parties to this case; it isn't precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current statutes and regulations the Board applies and Board precedent say, with citations.

About this page: The plain-English summary and decision snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official BRB release. The full text is the agency's own release.
Read the official release (dol.gov)

BRB final decision. The Benefits Review Board dismissed the appeal and remanded the claim to the district director for payment by the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. Under 20 C.F.R. § 802.406, a Board decision becomes final 60 days after issuance unless a timely petition for judicial review or a timely request for Board reconsideration is filed. A party may request Board reconsideration within 30 days under 20 C.F.R. § 802.407.

Plain-English summary

Charles Thrush sought black lung benefits in a claim involving Hobet Mining and its former parent company. Following a federal appeals court ruling on insurer liability, the Board dismissed Hobet and the parent company from payment responsibility. The Director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs did not oppose Thrush's entitlement to benefits. The Board dismissed the appeal and sent the claim to the district director for payment from the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund.

Decision snapshot

  • Authority: Trust Fund payment under 26 U.S.C. § 9501(d)(1)(B).
  • Outcome: Appeal dismissed; district director directed to arrange Trust Fund payment.
  • Key point: The dismissed companies are not responsible for payment, and the Trust Fund must pay the benefits.

Full text (BRB public release)

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

BRB No. 25-0060 BLA
Case No. 2021-BLA-05853

CHARLES T. THRUSH
)
)
Claimant-Respondent
)
)
v. )
)
HOBET MINING INCORPORATED
)
)
NOT-PUBLISHED
and
)
)
ARCH RESOURCES INCORPORATED
) DATE ISSUED: 08/11/2026
)
Employer/Carrier-
)
Petitioners
)
)
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’
)
COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
)
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
)
)
Party-in-Interest
)
ORDER

On October 1, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, within whose jurisdiction this case arises, held in Hobet Mining, Inc. v. Director, OWCP [Meredith], 156 F.4th 385 (4th Cir. 2025), reh’g denied (Mar. 16, 2026), that Arch Coal Company, Inc. (Arch) 1 the parent company of Hobet Mining Inc. (Hobet Mining), could 0F

not be held liable as a self-insurer for the payment of benefits arising out of a miner’s employment with Arch’s former subsidiaries, including Hobet Mining, when Patriot Coal

1
Arch Coal, Inc. is also known as Arch Resources. Arch has merged with CONSOL Energy and is now known as Core Natural Resources. Employer’s Motion to Dismiss at 1 n.2. the subsequent owner and self-insurer of Hobet Mining at the time the claim was filed, went bankrupt. The parties agree that Meredith controls this case.

On October 14, 2025, Core Natural Resources (Employer) filed a motion to dismiss Hobet Mining as the responsible operator and Arch as the responsible insurer in this case pursuant to Meredith. On April 7, 2026, the Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (the Director), filed a motion to hold this appeal in abeyance until Meredith is not subject to further appeal.

On July 22, 2026, the Benefits Review Board issued an Order denying the Director’s motion to hold the appeal in this case in abeyance, granted Employer’s motion to dismiss it as the responsible operator and Arch as the responsible insurer, and ordered the Director to inform the Board within seven days whether he elects to contest entitlement in this case. See 20 C.F.R. §§725.414(a)(3)(iii), 725.497(d). In a July 29, 2016 response to the Board’s Order, the Director states he does not oppose Claimant’s entitlement to benefits.

In view of the above, the Board dismisses this appeal and remands this case to the district director for the payment of benefits by the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. See 26 U.S.C. §9501(d)(1)(B); 20 C.F.R. §725.1(c), (e).

SO ORDERED.

DANIEL T. GRESH
Administrative Appeals Judge

JONATHAN ROLFE, Acting Chief
Administrative Appeals Judge

GLENN E. ULMER
Administrative Appeals Judge

2

What applies to your situation today?

This order bound one employer. Ezel checks the current statutes and regulations the Board applies and Board precedent against your facts, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace