Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Smith v. DOWCP, 06-1307 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1307 Visitors: 25
Filed: Sep. 07, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1307 KAREN SMITH, on behalf of Bobby R. Smith, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; RALEIGH MINE & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INCORPORATED; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS’ PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND, INCORPORATED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (05-0425-BLA) Submitted: August 14, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1307 KAREN SMITH, on behalf of Bobby R. Smith, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; RALEIGH MINE & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INCORPORATED; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS’ PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND, INCORPORATED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (05-0425-BLA) Submitted: August 14, 2006 Decided: September 7, 2006 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Karen Smith, Petitioner Pro Se. Christian P. Barber, Sarah Marie Hurley, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Robert Weinberger, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia; Martin Ellison Hall, JACKSON & KELLY, Lexington, Kentucky, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Karen Smith 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. §§ 901-945 (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. Smith v. Dir. Office of Workers’ Comp. Prog., No. 05-0425-BLA (BRB Feb. 16, 2006). 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