Skip to content
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Home / Decisions / United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit / Extra Energy, Incorporated v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs; Thomas R. Culbertson
4th Cir.

Extra Energy, Incorporated v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs; Thomas R. Culbertson

Extra Energy, Incorporated v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs; Thomas R. Culbertson

June 23, 2026 ·24-1618 ·Panel Decision ·Judge Deandrea Gist Benjamin · By Raj Patel

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied a petition for review filed by an employer challenging a black lung benefits regulation. The court held that the employer forfeited its argument by failing to raise the issue before the administrative law judge and the Benefits Review Board.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:25
Download

Key takeaways

  • Holding: The court denied the petition for review because the employer failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not raising its regulatory challenge before the administrative law judge and the Benefits Review Board.
  • Standard: Exhaustion of administrative remedies
  • Vote: Unanimous panel decision denying the petition.
  • Practical effect: Employers and other parties must ensure all legal challenges to agency regulations are raised during the initial administrative proceedings to avoid forfeiture on appeal.

Background

Thomas Culbertson, a coal mine worker, received benefits for legal pneumoconiosis under the Black Lung Benefits Act. The Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges confirmed the award, and the Benefits Review Board affirmed it. Extra Energy, Incorporated, the employer responsible for payments, appealed, arguing that a Department of Labor regulation defining ‘substantially similar’ surface mine conditions exceeded statutory authority.

The court’s reasoning

The court explained that administrative law requires parties to raise arguments before the administrative law judge and the Board to preserve them for appeal. While exceptions exist for futility or intervening changes in law, the court found neither applied here. The court determined that a prior decision did not foreclose the challenge, and the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision did not create a new avenue for review that was previously unavailable. Because the employer failed to raise the issue earlier, the argument was forfeited.

Because Extra Energy failed to do so, its argument is forfeited, and we deny its petition for review.

Extra Energy, Incorporated v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 24-1618 (4th Cir. June 23, 2026)

What it means going forward

Employers and other parties must ensure all legal challenges to agency regulations are raised during the initial administrative proceedings to avoid forfeiture on appeal.

Civil Social Security

On this page

Background The court’s reasoning What it means going forward

Share

Related from this court

Jul 17, 2026 Richard Lee Gravely v. Brady Hinchman Jul 17, 2026 JOSE ANSELMO CASTRO-CASTRO v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting Attorney General Jul 16, 2026 SAMRA ADEL v. TODD BLANCHE, Acting U.S. Attorney General Jul 16, 2026 Brown v. Meink
Do It For The Caselaw

Just Do It For the Caselaw!

Site

  • Mission
  • The Anchors
  • Editorial Process
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Contact

Read & Listen

  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • The Weekly Brief

Follow

© 2026 Do It For The Caselaw. Not legal advice.