Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jackson v. DOWCP, 96-1914 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1914 Visitors: 5
Filed: Nov. 18, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1914 HELEN JACKSON, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; PATSY TRUCKING, INCORPORATED; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS' PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND, INCOR- PORATED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-1898-BLA, XXX-XX-XXXX) Submitted: October 15, 1996 Decided: November 18, 1996 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and B
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1914 HELEN JACKSON, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; PATSY TRUCKING, INCORPORATED; WEST VIRGINIA COAL WORKERS' PNEUMOCONIOSIS FUND, INCOR- PORATED, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-1898-BLA, XXX-XX-XXXX) Submitted: October 15, 1996 Decided: November 18, 1996 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Helen Jackson, Petitioner Pro Se. Christian P. Barber, Jill M. Otte, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C.; Konstantine Keian Weld, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 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. Jackson v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 95-1898- BLA; XXX-XX-XXXX (B.R.B. May 30, 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