Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Artrip v. Island Creek Coal Co, 99-1093 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1093 Visitors: 34
Filed: Jun. 09, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1093 JIMMY C. ARTRIP, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRO- GRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-112-BLA) Submitted: May 18, 1999 Decided: June 9, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy C. Ar
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1093 JIMMY C. ARTRIP, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PRO- GRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (98-112-BLA) Submitted: May 18, 1999 Decided: June 9, 1999 Before WIDENER and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Cir- cuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jimmy C. Artrip, Petitioner Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Jeffrey Steven Goldberg, Christian P. Barber, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Ann Brannon Rembrandt, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Jimmy C. Artrip 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 Artrip v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, BRB No. 98-112-BLA, (B.R.B. Dec. 9, 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