Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Knox Creek Coal Co v. DOWCP, 01-2338 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2338 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jun. 14, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2338 KNOX CREEK COAL COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; VERNER LESTER, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (00-720-BLA) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: June 14, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark E.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2338 KNOX CREEK COAL COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; VERNER LESTER, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (00-720-BLA) Submitted: May 16, 2002 Decided: June 14, 2002 Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, GREENBERG TRAURIG, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Eugene Scalia, Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate Solicitor, Patricia M. Nece, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Helen H. Cox, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Verner Lester, Hurley, Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Petitioners seek review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of medical payments 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 Knox Creek Coal Co. v. DOWCP, No. 00-720-BLA (BRB Apr. 20 & Sept. 18, 2001). 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