Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mangus v. Elkay Mining Company, 96-1629 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1629 Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 30, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1629 ROBERT L. MANGUS, Petitioner, versus ELKAY MINING COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-2266-BLA, 92-620-BLA) Submitted: October 15, 1996 Decided: October 30, 1996 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Mangus, Petiti
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1629 ROBERT L. MANGUS, Petitioner, versus ELKAY MINING COMPANY; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-2266-BLA, 92-620-BLA) Submitted: October 15, 1996 Decided: October 30, 1996 Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert L. Mangus, Petitioner Pro Se. Douglas Allan Smoot, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia; Christian P. Barber, Jill M. Otte, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. ยงยง 901-945 (West 1986 & Supp. 1996). 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. Mangus v. Elkay Mining Co., Nos. 95-2266-BLA; 92-620-BLA (B.R.B. Mar. 28, 1996). 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
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