Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Beulah Clifton v. Island Creek Coal Company Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 94-1691 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-1691 Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 19, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 52 F.3d 320 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Beulah CLIFTON, Petitioner, v. ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents. No. 94-1691. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: J
More

52 F.3d 320
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Beulah CLIFTON, Petitioner,
v.
ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs, United States Department of
Labor, Respondents.

No. 94-1691.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: January 4, 1995.
Decided: April 19, 1995.

Beulah Clifton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, WV; Christian P. Barber, Gary K. Stearman, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, DC, for Respondents.

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG 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. Clifton v. Island Creek Coal Co., No. 92-1644-BLA (Ben. Rev. Bd. Apr. 28, 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.

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