Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rhonda Coal Company v. DOWCP, 09-1077 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1077 Visitors: 34
Filed: Nov. 13, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1077 RHONDA COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; TEDDY J. WHITED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (08-0234-BLA) Submitted: October 22, 2009 Decided: November 13, 2009 Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald E. Gilbertson, K&L GATES LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1077 RHONDA COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS; TEDDY J. WHITED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (08-0234-BLA) Submitted: October 22, 2009 Decided: November 13, 2009 Before MICHAEL, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald E. Gilbertson, K&L GATES LLP, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Joseph E. Wolfe, Ryan C. Gilligan, WOLFE, WILLIAMS, RUTHERFORD & REYNOLDS, Norton, Virginia, for Respondent Teddy J. Whited. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Rhonda 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 upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Rhonda Coal Co. v. Director, Office of Workers’ Comp. Prog., No. 08-0234-BLA (B.R.B. Nov. 26, 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