Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Martin v. Clinchfield Coal Co, 02-1732 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1732 Visitors: 56
Filed: Oct. 16, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1732 GUSSIE MARTIN, Petitioner, versus CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’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. (01-644-BLA) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gussie Martin, Petitioner Pro Se.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1732 GUSSIE MARTIN, Petitioner, versus CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’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. (01-644-BLA) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 16, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gussie Martin, Petitioner Pro Se. Timothy Ward Gresham, PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE, Abingdon, Virginia; Christian P. Barber, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Gussie Martin 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. §§ 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 Martin v. Clinchfield Coal Co., No. 01-644-BLA (BRB June 10, 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