Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sos v. T&C Coal Company, 96-1237 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1237 Visitors: 21
Filed: Sep. 13, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1237 ZOLY SOS, Petitioner, versus T & C COAL COMPANY; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS' PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND, INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-1323-BLA) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 13, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit J
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1237 ZOLY SOS, Petitioner, versus T & C COAL COMPANY; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS' PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND, INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-1323-BLA) Submitted: September 5, 1996 Decided: September 13, 1996 Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zoly Sos, Petitioner Pro Se. Konstantine Keian Weld, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia; Cathryn Celeste Helm, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washing- ton, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Sos v. T & C Coal Co., No. 95-1323-BLA (B.R.B. Jan. 23, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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