Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Folden v. Slab Fork Coal Company, 08-1927 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1927 Visitors: 8
Filed: May 01, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1927 DAVID FOLDEN, Petitioner, v. SLAB FORK COAL COMPANY; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS’ PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND, Brickstreet Administrative Services; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (07-0836-BLA) Submitted: March 18, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curi
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1927 DAVID FOLDEN, Petitioner, v. SLAB FORK COAL COMPANY; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS’ PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND, Brickstreet Administrative Services; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (07-0836-BLA) Submitted: March 18, 2009 Decided: May 1, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derrick W. Lefler, GIBSON, LEFLER & ASSOCIATES, Princeton, West Virginia, for Appellant. Douglas A. Smoot, Wendy G. Adkins, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Respondents Slab Fork Coal Company and West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Folden 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 (2006). 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. Folden v. Slab Fork Coal Co., No. 07-0836-BLA (B.R.B. June 24, 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