Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

89-3240 (1989)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 89-3240 Visitors: 22
Filed: Nov. 24, 1989
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 891 F.2d 287 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. David E. ROSS, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Kitt Energy Corporation; West Virginia Coal Workers' Pneumoconiosis Fund, Respondents. No. 89-3240. United States C
More

891 F.2d 287

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
David E. ROSS, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Kitt Energy
Corporation; West Virginia Coal
Workers' Pneumoconiosis Fund,
Respondents.

No. 89-3240.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Oct. 31, 1989.
Decided: Nov. 24, 1989.

David E. Ross, petitioner pro se.

Barbara J. Johnson, Sylvia Theresa Kaser, Michelle Seyman Gerdano, United States Department of Labor, for respondents.

Before HARRISON L. WINTER and MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Proceeding pro se, former coal miner David E. Ross seeks review of the decision and order of the Benefits Review Board affirming the Administrative Law Judge's denial of his application for disability benefits allowable under the Black Lung Benefits Act (as amended), 30 U.S.C. §§ 901, et seq. Our review of the record and the Benefits Review Board's decision and order discloses that this petition for review is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Ross v. Kitt Energy Corporation, BRB No. 87-1704 BLA (Feb. 17, 1989). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

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