Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Shatley v. Consolidation Coal, 99-2240 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2240 Visitors: 9
Filed: Apr. 18, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2240 WALTER N. SHATLEY, Petitioner, versus CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-959-BLA) Submitted: March 28, 2000 Decided: April 18, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter N. Shatley, Petitione
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2240 WALTER N. SHATLEY, Petitioner, versus CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-959-BLA) Submitted: March 28, 2000 Decided: April 18, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter N. Shatley, Petitioner Pro Se. Mary Rich Maloy, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Patricia May Nece, Edward Waldman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Walter N. Shatley seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1999). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. See Shatley v. Consolidation Coal Co., BRB No. 98-959-BLA, (B.R.B. April 27, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer