Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bailey v. OWCP, 98-2331 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2331 Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 23, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2331 JOHNNIE BAILEY, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRO- GRAM; ROBERT COAL COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC INSUR- ANCE COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (97-1626-BLA) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnnie Bailey, Petitioner Pro Se.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2331 JOHNNIE BAILEY, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRO- GRAM; ROBERT COAL COMPANY; OLD REPUBLIC INSUR- ANCE COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (97-1626-BLA) Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 23, 1999 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnnie Bailey, Petitioner Pro Se. Christian P. Barber, Sarah Marie Hurley, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Mark Elliott Solomons, Laura Metcoff Klaus, ARTER & HADDEN, Wash- ington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Johnnie Bailey 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. 1998). 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. See Bailey v. DOWCP, No. 97-1626-BLA (B.R.B. June 15, 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