Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Hamilton v. Clinchfield Coal Co, 01-2220 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2220 Visitors: 42
Filed: Mar. 04, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2220 DOROTHY A. HAMILTON, widow of James H. Hamilton, Petitioner, versus CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY;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. (00-1156-BLA) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Do
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2220 DOROTHY A. HAMILTON, widow of James H. Hamilton, Petitioner, versus CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY;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. (00-1156-BLA) Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dorothy A. Hamilton, Petitioner Pro Se. Timothy Ward Gresham, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia; Patricia May Nece, Timothy S. Williams, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Dorothy A. Hamilton 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. 2001). 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 Hamilton v. Clinchfield Coal Co., No. 00-1156- BLA (BRB Sept. 5, 2001). 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 * We have considered the revisions to the regulations imple- menting the Black Lung Benefits Act, see Regulations Implementing the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, as amended; 65 Fed. Reg. 79,919 (Dec. 20, 2000), and have determined that the revisions do not affect the outcome of this case. 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