Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ellis v. DOWCP, 00-1211 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1211 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 19, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1211 DONNIE ELLIS, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ARCH OF WEST VIRGINIA/AMHERST COAL COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (99-273-BLA) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 19, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnie Ellis, Petition
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1211 DONNIE ELLIS, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ARCH OF WEST VIRGINIA/AMHERST COAL COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (99-273-BLA) Submitted: July 13, 2000 Decided: July 19, 2000 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donnie Ellis, Petitioner Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Jennifer U. Toth, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Mary Rich Maloy, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donnie Ellis 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. 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 Ellis v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Pro- grams, No. 99-0273-BLA (B.R.B. Nov. 26, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- quately 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