Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bucklen v. Jewell Smokeless, 06-2294 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-2294 Visitors: 47
Filed: Jul. 10, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2294 LORENE BUCKLEN, Widow of Kermit Bucklen, Petitioner, versus JEWELL SMOKELESS COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board (05-0593-BLA) Submitted: June 13, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorene Bucklen,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-2294 LORENE BUCKLEN, Widow of Kermit Bucklen, Petitioner, versus JEWELL SMOKELESS COAL CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board (05-0593-BLA) Submitted: June 13, 2007 Decided: July 10, 2007 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorene Bucklen, Petitioner Pro Se. Ronald Eugene Gilbertson, BELL, BOYD & LLOYD, Washington, D.C.; Patricia May Nece, Sarah Marie Hurley, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lorene Bucklen seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decisions and orders affirming the administrative law judge’s denial of black lung benefits pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901- 945 (2000) and denying reconsideration. 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. Bucklen v. Jewell Smokeless Coal Corp., No. 05-0593-BLA (B.R.B. Feb. 15, 2006; Nov. 9, 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