Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Meade v. Clinchfield Coal Co, 99-2594 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2594 Visitors: 36
Filed: May 16, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2594 KESTER J. MEADE, Petitioner, versus CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’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. (BRB No. 98-1618-BLA) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kester J. Meade, Petitioner
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2594 KESTER J. MEADE, Petitioner, versus CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’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. (BRB No. 98-1618-BLA) Submitted: May 11, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kester J. Meade, Petitioner Pro Se. Harry Ashby Dickerson, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia; Christian P. Barber, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Kester J. Meade 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 1994 & Supp. 2000). 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 Meade v. Clinchfield Coal Co., BRB No. 98-1618-BLA (Oct. 18, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 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