Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Consolidation Coal v. Earl, 05-1287 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1287 Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 05, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1287 CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, versus MARGARET EARL, Surviving spouse of Willard Earl, deceased; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (04-0380-BLA) Submitted: October 31, 2005 Decided: December 5, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1287 CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, versus MARGARET EARL, Surviving spouse of Willard Earl, deceased; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (04-0380-BLA) Submitted: October 31, 2005 Decided: December 5, 2005 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Steele Mattingly, Ashley Marie Harman, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Margaret Earl, Rachel, West Virginia, Respondent Pro Se; Christian P. Barber, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Helen Hart Cox, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Washington, D.C., for Respondent DOWCP. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Consolidation Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of black lung disability and survivor’s 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 for the reasons stated by the Board. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Earl, No. 04-0380- BLA (BRB Jan. 18, 2005). We grant Consolidation Coal’s motion to strike the addendum to respondent’s informal reply brief and 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