Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

93-1021 (1993)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-1021 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jun. 22, 1993
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 996 F.2d 1211 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Nell F. HICKS, widow of William D. Hicks, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Winston Mining Corporation, Respondents. No. 93-1021. United States Court of Appeals,
More

996 F.2d 1211

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Nell F. HICKS, widow of William D. Hicks, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; Winston Mining
Corporation, Respondents.

No. 93-1021.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 29, 1993.
Decided: June 22, 1993.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (87-3097-BLA)

Nell F. Hicks, Petitioner Pro Se.

Rita A. Roppolo, Barbara J. Johnson, United States Department of Labor, Washington, D.C.; Ronald Eugene Gilbertson, Kilcullen, Wilson & Kilcullen, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Ben.Rev.Bd.

AFFIRMED.

Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

OPINION

1

Nell F. Hicks 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. # 8E8E # 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1992). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Hicks v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 87-3097-BLA (B.R.B. Dec. 10, 1992). 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