Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jamison v. Olga Coal Company, 02-1964 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-1964 Visitors: 15
Filed: Nov. 13, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1964 BRENDA L. JAMISON, Petitioner, versus OLGA COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKER’S PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND, INCORPORATED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (01-0952-BLA) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circ
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1964 BRENDA L. JAMISON, Petitioner, versus OLGA COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKER’S PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND, INCORPORATED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (01-0952-BLA) Submitted: November 7, 2002 Decided: November 13, 2002 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brenda L. Jamison, Petitioner Pro Se. Robert Weinberger, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia; Patricia May Nece, Barry H. Joyner, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Brenda L. Jamison 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 Jamison v. Olga Coal Co., No. 01-0952-BLA (BRB July 19, 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