Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Billiter v. Hard Times Mining, 97-1622 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1622 Visitors: 71
Filed: Jun. 18, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1622 JIMMY L. BILLITER, Petitioner, versus HARD TIMES MINING; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (96-1087-BLA) Submitted: April 7, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy L. Billiter
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1622 JIMMY L. BILLITER, Petitioner, versus HARD TIMES MINING; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (96-1087-BLA) Submitted: April 7, 1998 Decided: June 18, 1998 Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy L. Billiter, Petitioner Pro Se. Ronald Eugene Gilbertson, KILCULLEN, WILSON, & KILCULLEN, Washington, D.C.; John Vincent Carroll, Richlands, Virginia; Patricia May Nece, Cathryn Celeste Helm, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. §§ 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 reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant Appellant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Billiter v. Hard Times Mining, BRB No. 96-1087-BLA (B.R.B. Apr. 25, 1997). We dis- pense 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