Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Consolidation Coal v. Spadaro, 06-1922 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-1922 Visitors: 16
Filed: Apr. 12, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1922 CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, versus BENNY S. SPADARO; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (05-0689-BLA; 2003-BLA-6384) Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 12, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ashley M. Harman, Dougla
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1922 CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, versus BENNY S. SPADARO; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (05-0689-BLA; 2003-BLA-6384) Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 12, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ashley M. Harman, Douglas A. Smoot, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Frederick K. Muth, HENSLEY, MUTH, GARTON & HAYES, Bluefield, West Virginia; Howard M. Radzely, Patricia M. Nece, Jeffrey S. Goldberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 benefits on a claim filed by Benny Spadaro 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. Spadaro, No. 05-0689-BLA (B.R.B. June 26, 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