Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

John P. Minor v. Majestic Mining Company Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, 94-2234 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 94-2234 Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 02, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 48 F.3d 1216 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. John P. MINOR, Petitioner, v. MAJESTIC MINING COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents. No. 94-2234. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted Feb.
More

48 F.3d 1216
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

John P. MINOR, Petitioner,
v.
MAJESTIC MINING COMPANY; Director, Office of Workers'
Compensation Programs, United States Department of
Labor, Respondents.

No. 94-2234.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 14, 1995.
Decided March 2, 1995.

John P. Minor, Petitioner pro se. Mary Rich Maloy, Jackson & Kelly, Charleston, WV; Christian P. Barber, Gary K. Stearman, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, DC, for respondents.

Before HAMILTON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, 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 that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Minor v. Majestic Mining Co., No. 93-190-BLA (B.R.B. Aug. 11, 1994). 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