# Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Bostic

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · August 20, 2014 · 581 F. App'x 291

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8675812

## Case

- **Full name:** CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY v. Harold BOSTIC Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 20, 2014
- **Citations:** 581 F. App'x 291
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8675812

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that it was bad faith to seek to amend complaint in order to “artificially inflate . . . damages in order to obtain subject matter jurisdiction”
- holding that it was bad faith to seek to amend complaint in order to “artificially inflate ... damages in order to obtain subject matter jurisdiction”
- finding that a party acted in bad faith by seeking leave to amend “to artificially inflate his damages in order to obtain subject matter jurisdiction”
- holding that it was bad faith to seek to amend complaint to “artificially inflate . . . damages in order to obtain subject matter jurisdiction”
- finding amended was sought in bad faith when the plaintiff “merely sought to artificially inflate his damages in order to obtain subject matter jurisdiction”

## Opinion text

PER CURIAM:
Clinchfield Coal Company petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2012). Our review of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Bostic, No. 13-0046-BLA (BRB Sept. 25, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8675812. Public record. Not legal advice.