Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Schell v. DOWCP, 95-2640 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-2640 Visitors: 57
Filed: Mar. 19, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2640 HOBERT A. SCHELL, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-0845-BLA) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hobert A. Schell, Petiti
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 95-2640 HOBERT A. SCHELL, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-0845-BLA) Submitted: December 12, 1995 Decided: March 19, 1996 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hobert A. Schell, Petitioner Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Rita A. Roppolo, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. ยงยง 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. Schell v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 95-0845-BLA (B.R.B. July 31, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
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