Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Huffman v. DOWCP, 96-2298 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-2298 Visitors: 10
Filed: Aug. 28, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2298 GILVIE E. HUFFMAN, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (92-2117-BLA) Submitted: July 31, 1997 Decided: August 28, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gilvie E. Huffman, Petitioner
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2298 GILVIE E. HUFFMAN, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (92-2117-BLA) Submitted: July 31, 1997 Decided: August 28, 1997 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gilvie E. Huffman, Petitioner Pro Se. Christian P. Barber, Jill M. Otte, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Petitioner seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's deci- sion 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. 1996). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without revers- ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board.* Huffman v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 92-2117-BLA (B.R.B. Aug. 9, 1996). 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 deci- sional process. AFFIRMED * We adopt the reasoning of the Board insofar as it finds that Petitioner is not entitled to benefits on the merits of his claim. 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