Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Clark v. Eastern Assoc Coal, 04-1730 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1730 Visitors: 81
Filed: Dec. 21, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1730 EARNEST P. CLARK, Petitioner, versus EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF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. (03-0631-BLA) Submitted: November 24, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S. F. Raymond Smit
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1730 EARNEST P. CLARK, Petitioner, versus EASTERN ASSOCIATED COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF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. (03-0631-BLA) Submitted: November 24, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before LUTTIG, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S. F. Raymond Smith, RUNDLE & RUNDLE, L.C., Pineville, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Mark E. Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, GREENBERG TRAURIG, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Respondent Eastern Associated Coal Corporation. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Earnest P. Clark seeks review of a decision and order of the Benefits Review Board (“Board”) affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits 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 Clark v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp., No. 03-0631-BLA (BRB April 29, 2004). 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
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