Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jordan v. Sterling Mining Co, 95-2323 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2323 Visitors: 19
Filed: Mar. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2323 MORRIS R. JORDAN, Petitioner, versus STERLING MINING COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (94-2250-BLA) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2323 MORRIS R. JORDAN, Petitioner, versus STERLING MINING COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (94-2250-BLA) Submitted: February 27, 1996 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morris R. Jordan, Petitioner Pro Se. Mark Elliott Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, ARTER & HADDEN, Washington, D.C.; Patricia May Nece, Jill M. Otte, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: 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. ยงยง 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1995). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Jordan v. Sterling Mining Co., No. 94-2250-BLA (B.R.B. June 22, 1995). 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 2
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