Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cook v. DOWCP, 96-1737 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 96-1737 Visitors: 26
Filed: Jan. 14, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1737 MICHAEL A. COOK, Executor for the Estate of Roy L. Cook, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE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. (Nos. 95-1223-BLA, 91-1212-BLA) Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: January 14, 1997 Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by un
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-1737 MICHAEL A. COOK, Executor for the Estate of Roy L. Cook, Petitioner, versus DIRECTOR, OFFICE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. (Nos. 95-1223-BLA, 91-1212-BLA) Submitted: December 17, 1996 Decided: January 14, 1997 Before WILKINS and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Cook, Petitioner Pro Se. Patricia May Nece, Eileen Mary McCarthy, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Petitioner seeks review of the Benefits Review Board's deci- sion 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 revers- ible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the Board. Cook v. Director, OWCP, Nos. 95-1223-BLA; 91-1212-BLA (BRB Apr. 5, 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. Leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is granted. 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