Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Island Creek Coal Company v. Dewitt, 08-1818 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-1818 Visitors: 49
Filed: Apr. 28, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1818 ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DARREL B. DEWITT; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (07-0741-BLA) Submitted: April 15, 2009 Decided: April 28, 2009 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William S. Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY PLL
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1818 ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DARREL B. DEWITT; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (07-0741-BLA) Submitted: April 15, 2009 Decided: April 28, 2009 Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. William S. Mattingly, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Timothy C. MacDonnell, Mary Z. Natkin, Ketan V. Patel, WASHINGTON AND LEE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Lexington, Virginia, for Respondent Darrel B. Dewitt. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Island Creek Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award 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 on substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Island Creek Coal Co. v. Dewitt, No. 07-0741-BLA (B.R.B. May 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