Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Harold Presley v. Clinchfield Coal Company Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 89-2409 (1990)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 89-2409 Visitors: 32
Filed: Jun. 20, 1990
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 908 F.2d 967 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Harold PRESLEY, Petitioner, v. CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents. No. 89-2409. United States Court of Appeals, Four
More

908 F.2d 967
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Harold PRESLEY, Petitioner,
v.
CLINCHFIELD COAL COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs, United States Department of
Labor, Respondents.

No. 89-2409.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 4, 1990.
Decided: June 20, 1990.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (No. 87-3150-BLA).

Harold Presley, petitioner pro se.

Harry Ashby Dickerson, Penn, Stuart, Eskridge & Jones, Abingdon, Va.; Sylvia Teresa Kaser, Dorothy L. Page, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Ben.Rev.Bd.

AFFIRMED.

Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and CHAPMAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Harold Presley seeks reviews 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. Secs. 901 et seq. Our review of the record and the Board's decision and order discloses that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Presley v. Clinchfield Coal Co., No. 87-3150-BLA (Benefits Review Board May 31, 1989). 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

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