Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Raymond Clay v. Amherst Coal Company, Director, Office of Workers Compensation Program, United States Department of Labor, 89-2764 (1991)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 89-2764 Visitors: 8
Filed: Feb. 25, 1991
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 927 F.2d 595 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Raymond CLAY, Petitioner, v. AMHERST COAL COMPANY, Director, Office of Workers Compensation Program, United States Department of Labor, Respondents. No. 89-2764. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circu
More

927 F.2d 595
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.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

No. 89-2764.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 4, 1991.
Decided Feb. 25, 1991.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (87-3355-BLA)

Raymond Clay, petitioner pro se.

Henry Chaplin Bowen, Robinson & McElwee, Charleston, W.Va., Sylvia Theresa Kaser, Steven D. Breeskin, Karen Nancy Blank, Donald Steven Shire, Lawrence W. Rogers, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Ben.Rev.Bd.

AFFIRMED.

Before DONALD RUSSELL, SPROUSE* and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Raymond Clay 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. 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. Clay v. Amherst Coal Co., 87-3355-BLA (June 20, 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

*

Judge Sprouse was a member of the panel to which this case was assigned. He recused himself, however, and did not participate in the decision of the case. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 46(d)

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