Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Carroll v. Westmoreland Coal Co, 04-1659 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1659 Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 21, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1659 CLARENCE O. CARROLL, Petitioner, versus WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (03-0441-BLA) Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S.F. Raymond S
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1659 CLARENCE O. CARROLL, Petitioner, versus WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (03-0441-BLA) Submitted: November 19, 2004 Decided: December 21, 2004 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. S.F. Raymond Smith, RUNDLE & RUNDLE, L.C., Pineville, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Douglas A. Smoot, Kathy L. Snyder, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Respondent Westmoreland Coal Company. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Clarence O. Carroll 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. §§ 901-45 (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 Carroll v. Westmoreland Coal Co., No. 03-0441-BLA (BRB Mar. 31, 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 - 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