Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Woodard v. Dominion Coal Co, 02-1203 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1203 Visitors: 9
Filed: Sep. 19, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1203 DRAPER L. WOODARD, Petitioner, versus DOMINION COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’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. (01-449-BLA, 97-1611-BLA,XXX-XX-XXXX) Submitted: August 22, 2002 Decided: September 19, 2002 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublishe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1203 DRAPER L. WOODARD, Petitioner, versus DOMINION COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’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. (01-449-BLA, 97-1611-BLA,XXX-XX-XXXX) Submitted: August 22, 2002 Decided: September 19, 2002 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Draper L. Woodard, Petitioner Pro Se. Ronald Eugene Gilbertson, BELL, BOYD & LLOYD, Washington, D.C.; Patricia May Nece, Christian P. Barber, Helen Hart Cox, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Draper L. Woodard seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s grant of Dominion Coal’s request for modification of the award of benefits on her deceased husband’s claim and the denial of her survivor’s claim for black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (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 Woodard v. Dominion Coal Co., No. 01-449-BLA (BRB Feb. 6, 2002). 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