Filed: Apr. 12, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1709 MORRISON MULLINS, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (93-167-BLA) Submitted: December 5, 1995 Decided: April 12, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morrison Mullins, Pe
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1709 MORRISON MULLINS, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (93-167-BLA) Submitted: December 5, 1995 Decided: April 12, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morrison Mullins, Pet..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-1709 MORRISON MULLINS, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (93-167-BLA) Submitted: December 5, 1995 Decided: April 12, 1996 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Morrison Mullins, Petitioner Pro Se. Cathryn Celeste Helm, Christian P. Barber, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: 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. §§ 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1995). 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. Mullins v. Director of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 93-167-BLA (B.R.B. Feb. 27, 1995). 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 2