Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Elmer Hess v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 93-2257 (1994)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-2257 Visitors: 35
Filed: May 20, 1994
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 23 F.3d 401 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Elmer HESS, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE of WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor, Respondent. No. 93-2257. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 18, 1994. Decided May 20, 199
More

23 F.3d 401
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Elmer HESS, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE of WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United
States Department of Labor, Respondent.

No. 93-2257.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 18, 1994.
Decided May 20, 1994.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (92-1444-BLA)

Elmer Hess, Petitioner Pro Se.

Marta Kusic, Staff Atty., Alan G. Paez, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, DC. for Respondent.

Ben.Rev.Bd.

AFFIRMED.

Before HALL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant 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.A. Secs. 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.1993). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Hess v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 92-1444-BLA (B.R.B. Sept. 20, 1993). 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.

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