Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Brewster v. Westmoreland Coal Company, Inc, 08-1816 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1816 Visitors: 33
Filed: Dec. 15, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1816 DAVID BREWSTER, Petitioner, v. WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (07-0835-BLA) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Brewster, Petitioner Pro Se. Douglas Allan
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1816 DAVID BREWSTER, Petitioner, v. WESTMORELAND COAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (07-0835-BLA) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 15, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Brewster, Petitioner Pro Se. Douglas Allan Smoot, Kathy Lynn Snyder, JACKSON & KELLY, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia; Sean Gregory Bajkowski, Barry H. Joyner, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Brewster 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 deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Brewster v. Westmoreland Coal Co., Inc., No. 07-0835-BLA (B.R.B. June 30, 2008). 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. PETITION DENIED 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