Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sparks v. Bill Branch Coal, 03-1986 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-1986 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 19, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1986 SHIRLEY SPARKS, Widow of Willard Sparks, Petitioner, versus BILL BRANCH COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-478-BLA; 02-620-BLA) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 19, 2004 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1986 SHIRLEY SPARKS, Widow of Willard Sparks, Petitioner, versus BILL BRANCH COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-478-BLA; 02-620-BLA) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 19, 2004 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shirley Sparks, Petitioner Pro Se. Ronald Eugene Gilbertson, BELL, BOYD & LLOYD, Washington, D.C.; Christian P. Barber, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Shirley Sparks seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order reversing the administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-45 (West 1986 & Supp. 2003). 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 Sparks v. Bill Branch Coal Corp., Nos. 95-478-BLA; 02- 620-BLA (B.R.B. July 30, 2003). 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