Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Peabody Coal Company v. Morgan, 03-2478 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2478 Visitors: 62
Filed: Jun. 09, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2478 PEABODY COAL COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, versus DON JEAN MORGAN; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (03-135-BLA) Submitted: May 14, 2004 Decided: June 9, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark E. Solomon
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2478 PEABODY COAL COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioners, versus DON JEAN MORGAN; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (03-135-BLA) Submitted: May 14, 2004 Decided: June 9, 2004 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, GREENBERG TRAURIG, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. John H. Shumate, Jr., Mt. Hope, West Virginia; Howard M. Radzely, Solicitor of Labor, Donald S. Shire, Associate Solicitor, Patricia M. Nece, Counsel for Appellate Litigation, Rita Roppolo, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Peabody Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits on a claim filed by Don J. Morgan pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-45 (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 Peabody Coal Co. v. Morgan, No. 03-135-BLA (BRB Oct. 31, 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