Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Arlie Barker v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Cedar Coal Company, 94-1768 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-1768 Visitors: 61
Filed: Jun. 30, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 60 F.3d 820 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Arlie BARKER, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor; Cedar Coal Company, Respondents. No. 94-1768. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. June 30, 1995. A
More

60 F.3d 820
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Arlie BARKER, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United
States Department of Labor; Cedar Coal Company,
Respondents.

No. 94-1768.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

June 30, 1995.

Arlie Barker, Petitioner Pro Se.

C. William Mangum and Christian P. Barber, Washington, DC

William J. Evans, Salt Lake City, UT

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's decision and order and order on reconsideration 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. Barker v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Nos. 92-145-BLA; 92-145-BLA-A (B.R.B. May 9, 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