Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Roberts v. Cavalier Mining Corp, 96-1423 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1423 Visitors: 16
Filed: Feb. 12, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1423 CARL J. ROBERTS, Petitioner, versus CAVALIER MINING CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (No. 93-674-BLA) Submitted: January 28, 1997 Decided: February 12, 1997 Before HALL and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. C
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1423 CARL J. ROBERTS, Petitioner, versus CAVALIER MINING CORPORATION; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (No. 93-674-BLA) Submitted: January 28, 1997 Decided: February 12, 1997 Before HALL and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carl J. Roberts, Petitioner Pro Se. CAVALIER MINING CORPORATION, Wise, Virginia; Dorothy L. Page, Christian P. Barber, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. Roberts v. Cavalier Mining Corp., No. 93-674-BLA (B.R.B. Feb. 7, 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