Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Elmer W. Matney v. Virginia Pocahontas Coal Company Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 94-1991 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-1991 Visitors: 16
Filed: Feb. 15, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 47 F.3d 1165 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 W. MATNEY, Petitioner, v. VIRGINIA POCAHONTAS COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents. No. 94-1991. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Sub
More

47 F.3d 1165

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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 W. MATNEY, Petitioner,
v.
VIRGINIA POCAHONTAS COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of
Workers' Compensation Programs, United States
Department of Labor, Respondents.

No. 94-1991.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 18, 1995.
Decided Feb. 15, 1995.

Elmer W. Matney, Petitioner Pro Se. Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Patricia May Nece, Elizabeth Ann Goodman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

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.1994). 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. Matney v. Virginia Pocahontas Coal Co., No. 93-1587-BLA (B.R.B. June 24, 1994). 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