Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jerry Yates v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Clinchfield Coal Company, 93-2579 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 93-2579 Visitors: 15
Filed: Jun. 30, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 60 F.3d 827 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Jerry YATES, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United States Department of Labor; Clinchfield Coal Company, Respondents. No. 93-2579. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted A
More

60 F.3d 827
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Jerry YATES, Petitioner,
v.
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, United
States Department of Labor; Clinchfield Coal
Company, Respondents.

No. 93-2579.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 18, 1995.
Decided June 30, 1995.

Jerry Yates, Petitioner Pro Se.

Patricia May Nece and Alan G. Paez, Washington, DC

Michael Francis Blair, Abingdon, VA

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant 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. Secs. 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp.1994). 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. Yates v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 92-1698-BLA (B.R.B. Nov. 23, 1993). 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