Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Osborne v. Island Creek Coal Co, 98-1956 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1956 Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 10, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1956 PAUL E. OSBORNE, Petitioner, versus ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (97-1341-BLA) Submitted: January 19, 1999 Decided: February 10, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul E. Osborne, Petitione
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1956 PAUL E. OSBORNE, Petitioner, versus ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (97-1341-BLA) Submitted: January 19, 1999 Decided: February 10, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul E. Osborne, Petitioner Pro Se. Mary Rich Maloy, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Christian P. Barber, Helen Hart Cox, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Paul E. Osborne seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s decision denying his request under 20 C.F.R. 725.310 (1998) for modification of a prior denial of his application for black lung benefits. 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. See Osborne v. Island Creek Coal Co., BRB No. 97-1341-BLA (B.R.B. Apr. 29, 1998). 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